MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W198356505

Object-oriented programming in C# with dynamic classification.

2004· article· en· W198356505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenjiang. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Programming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object-oriented programming language has gained popularity in recent years. However, some problems exist in object-oriented programming languages. It works well with static classification, but does not support object dynamic classification. Static classification means an object always and only belongs to one class during its life spans. In real-world applications, objects may belong to different classes rendering different roles certain times during the lifetime. Dynamic classification enables the changing of object classification over time. Objects can be classified and declassified into/from acquire and release class membership during runtime. In this thesis, many approaches to dynamic classification will be discussed in different implementing languages. Based on the thorough reviews of these approaches, we give a new approach. This approach combines the concept of object and roles and extends a class hierarchy with dynamic classification. The syntax of dynamic classification shows how to implement the function of dynamic classification in the object-oriented programming language. Finally, we present a preprocessor, by which a C♯ code including the extendable dynamic classification functions can be translated to standard C♯ code.Dept. of Computer Science. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .W364. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-03, page: 0892. Adviser: Liwu Li. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207