MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965632828 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.04.166

Object construction and destruction design patterns in Fortran 2003

2010· article· en· W1965632828 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

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Nuclear Security AdministrationInternational Business Machines CorporationSandia National LaboratoriesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsComputer scienceFortranLeverage (statistics)Programming languageSoftware design patternFactory (object-oriented programming)Software engineeringPerspective (graphical)Object-oriented programmingSoftwareTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents object-oriented design patterns in the context of object construction and destruction. The examples leverage the newly supported object-oriented features of Fortran 2003. We describe from the client perspective two patterns articulated by Gamma et al. [1]: abstract factory and factory method. We also describe from the implementation perspective one new pattern: the object pattern. We apply the Gamma et al. patterns to solve a partial differential equation, and we discuss applying the new pattern to a quantum vortex dynamics code. Finally, we address consequences and describe the use of the patterns in two open-source software projects: ForTrilinos and Morfeus.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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