MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W183904622

Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Parallel architectures and compilation techniques

2008· article· en· W183904622 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerSession (web analytics)ArchitecturePeriod (music)Library scienceOperations researchProgramming languageWorld Wide WebHistoryEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our pleasure to welcome you to the 17th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT 2008). PACT brings together researchers from computer architecture, compilers, applications, and programming languages to present and discuss research of common interest. PACT 2008 features research on a broad range of topics, including parallel architectures, compilers, tools, benchmarks, I/O, reconfigurable architectures, middleware and runtime systems, hardware support for multithreading, and memory hierarchy design and programming. There were 159 submissions to the conference, a strong number of submissions again. The submitted papers underwent a thorough review process. Each paper was assigned to at least 3 program committee members to review. For most papers, at least one external review from an outside expert was obtained as well. There was an author feedback period, where authors could provide feedback on preliminary reviews. Authors could address questions from reviewers and correct factual errors. The program committee did an admirable job of reviewing the papers in a relatively short time frame. On average, each committee member had about 21 papers to review. Committee members were assigned papers in early April and reviews were due on Monday, May 19th to accommodate the author feedback period. The author feedback period was from May 21st to May 23rd . The committee met on Monday, June 2nd at Stanford University. The committee accepted 30 papers, for an acceptance rate of about 19%. We are pleased to be meeting in the beautiful city of Toronto, Canada. We hope that you will enjoy Toronto in late October. The technical program includes talks for 30 papers and two keynotes. There is a special event at the CN tower on Tuesday evening, as well as plenty of time for socializing and discussing on-going research. There are also 5 tutorials and 3 workshops the weekend before the main conference.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
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