MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965418329 · doi:10.1145/1018203.1018208

A semantics for advice and dynamic join points in aspect-oriented programming

2004· article· en· W1965418329 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

VenueACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJoin (topology)Programming languageSemantics (computer science)Advice (programming)Aspect-oriented programmingDenotational semanticsCorrectnessSet (abstract data type)Operational semanticsSoftwareMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A characteristic of aspect-oriented programming, as embodied in Aspect J, is the use of advice and point cuts to define behavior that crosscuts the structure of the rest of the code. The events during execution at which advice may execute are called join points . A pointcut is a set of join points. An advice is an action to be taken at the join points in a particular pointcut. In this model of aspect-oriented programming, join points are dynamic in that they refer to events during the flow of execution of the program.We give a denotational semantics for a minilanguage that embodies the key features of dynamic join points, pointcuts, and advice. This is the first semantics for aspect-oriented programming that handles dynamic join points and recursive procedures. It is intended as a baseline semantics against which future correctness results may be measured.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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