MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970171046 · doi:10.1145/2643135.2643153

Bidirectional Elaboration of Dependently Typed Programs

2014· article· en· W1970171046 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageElaborationNormalization (sociology)Programming paradigmSet (abstract data type)Type safety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dependently typed programming languages allow programmers to express a rich set of invariants and verify them statically via type checking. To make programming with dependent types practical, dependently typed systems provide a compact language for programmers where one can omit some arguments, called implicit, which can be inferred. This source language is then usually elaborated into a core language where type checking and fundamental properties such as normalization are well understood. Unfortunately, this elaboration is rarely specified and in general is ill-understood. This makes it not only difficult for programmers to understand why a given program fails to type check, but also is one of the reasons that implementing dependently typed programming systems remains a black art known only to a few.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207