Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to OOPSLA 2002 in Seattle, Washington, USA, November 4-8, 2002.We bring you the proceedings of the technical papers track of the 17th OOPSLA, whose history has started back in 1986. Despite OOPSLA having been held in the neighboring cities of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver. B.C. several times, this is the first time that OOPLSA has taken a trip to Seattle.Despite recent difficult times, including the tragic events of last year, there were a healthy number of technical track paper submissions - 125 submitted in total, and all the papers were reviewed with stringent acceptance criteria, what OOPSLA has been traditionally reputed for. In fact the reviews were more carefully than previous years - there were 4-5 reviewers assigned to each paper, and the reviewers were asked explicitly to give comprehensive reviews to benefit the authors. During the two full days of the PC meeting, each paper was discussed in detail, and at the end the program committee decided to accept 25 for publication and presentation at OOPSLA 2002.Of the 25, five are PC papers, i.e., papers whose authors include PC members. I must make a note that in fact they were held to higher standard than normal paper acceptance. There were a number of PC papers submitted this year, and steps were taken to assure fairness, so that being on the PC never became an advantage. For example, more reviewers were assigned to PC papers - from 5 reviewers up to 8, and a special session was held during the PC meeting to discuss individual PC submissions in full anonymity. Also, the evaluation criteria itself was held to a higher, more stringent standard; as such the higher number of PC paper acceptance merely exemplifies that the PC members themselves were top, active researchers in the OO field, performing quality work for themselves.The PC meeting was held on the Microsoft Campus during May 3-4th in Redmond, WA, courtesy of Microsoft who provided various administrative as well as financial supports for the PC, to which OOPSLA acknowledges with deepest appreciation for their generosity. It is quite satisfying that one of the top software companies has decided to back OOPSLA in a significant way, demonstrating that OOPSLA is considered to be one of the premiere research and technology forums by the industry.Finally, I must mention that, just before the time of this writing we experienced the unfortunate, consecutive passing of the two Norwegian pioneers of object-oriented computing, namely professors Kristen Nygaard and O.J. Dahl. In fact, they had just received the honorable ACM Turing Award for their achievements, and Professor Nygaard was to present his Turing Award speech as a keynote for OOPSLA 2002. Their work in Simula-67 essentially initiated our field 35 years ago, and their successive work in Beta still influences many of the research presented at OOPSLA today. My deepest condolences to both families as well as many of our colleagues who were closely acquainted with them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.137 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".