MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499460047 · doi:10.1109/tools.1997.654734

A visual programming interface for Smalltalk

2002· article· en· W1499460047 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoftware Engineering and Design Patterns
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageSmalltalkVisual programming languageSemantics (computer science)Representation (politics)Object-oriented programmingEvent-driven programmingGraphical user interfaceHuman–computer interactionProgramming paradigmInductive programmingProcedural programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been hypothesized that "visual" programming can lead to faster development and better programs. Whether this hope is justified still remains to be seen and one of the aims of the work is to provide tools allowing an objective exploration of this hypothesis. The visual syntax described in the paper defines a graphical representation of messages and the "flow" of objects within a method. Its implementation allows methods to be viewed and edited either graphically or as text with immediate conversion from one form to the other. Graphical representation eliminates certain types of programming errors and provides better presentation of the semantics and logic of the code. It also helps visualise code tracing in a more object-oriented way. While the experience suggests that graphical representation makes code easier to understand, further empirical study is required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering and Design PatternsFrench-language works237,207