MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002662905 · doi:10.5555/2664431.2664441

The semantics of partial model transformations

2012· article· en· W2002662905 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
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformation (genetics)Partial evaluationModel transformationComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)SolverENCODETheoretical computer scienceLogic modelAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmProgramming languageMathematicsArtificial intelligencePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—Model transformations are traditionally designed to operate on models that do not contain uncertainty. In previous work, we have developed partial models, i.e., models that explicitly capture uncertainty. In this paper, we study the transformation of partial models. We define the notion of correct lifting of transformations so that they can be applied to partial models. For this, we encode transformations as transfer predicates and describe the mechanics of applying transformations using logic. We demonstrate the approach using two example transformations (addition and deletion) and outline a method for testing the application of transformations using a SAT solver. Reflecting on these preliminary attempts, we discuss the main limitations and challenges and outline future steps for our research on partial model transformation. I. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATING EXAMPLE

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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