MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993084949 · doi:10.1145/1218563.1218571

A static aspect language for checking design rules

2007· article· en· W1993084949 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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageCompile timeSet (abstract data type)CompilerAspect-oriented programmingDomain (mathematical analysis)Design languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design rules express constraints on the behavior and structure of a program. These rules can help ensure that a program follows a set of established practices, and avoids certain classes of errors. Design rules often crosscut program structure and enforcing them is emerging as an important application domain for Aspect Oriented Programming. For many interesting design rules, current general purpose AOP languages lack the expressiveness to charac-terize them statically and enforce them at compile time. We have developed a domain specific language called Program Description Logic (PDL). PDL allows succinct declarative defini-tions of programmatic structures which correspond to design rule violations. PDL is based on a fully static and expressive pointcut language. PDL pointcuts allow characterizing a wide range of de-sign rules without sacrificing static verification. We evaluate PDL by comparing it to FxCop, an industrial strength tool for checking design rules.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.273 · 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