MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529108641 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1995.519532

Efficient object-oriented execution strategies for parallel computers

2002· article· en· W1529108641 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Rostam, M.R. Ito

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConcurrencyConcurrency controlObject (grammar)Object-oriented programmingSynchronization (alternating current)Task (project management)Programming languageDistributed computingControl (management)Separation of concernsSoftware engineeringSoftwareArtificial intelligenceDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the traditional object-oriented languages, the object stands for basic entity with attributes (representing data structures) and methods (services that can be provided by the object). Nevertheless an important part of the object that concerns its behavior is still to be defined precisely. The behavior can he defined as rules for the use of methods such as priority, sequentiality and concurrency. What we propose is to define control objects, managing the object behavior. An important aspect of this approach is the separation of concerns of mechanisms and policies, one of the fundamental principles of open systems. We begin with discussing the idea of control objects during the system development life-cycle using object-oriented software engineering (OOSE) described by Jacobson (see Addison-Wesley, 1992). We then extend the model and discuss the importance of control objects in capturing the behavior of a group of associated objects to perform a task. Encapsulating synchronization and concurrency constraints in control objects which provides the basis for parallel execution is also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207