MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009343859 · doi:10.1017/s096012959900300x

On lists and other abstract data types in the calculus of constructions

2000· article· en· W2009343859 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

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiomPredicate (mathematical logic)Injective functionMathematicsType (biology)Pure mathematicsComputer scienceCalculus (dental)Discrete mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The representation of the inductively defined abstract data type for lists was left incomplete in Seldin (1997, Section 9). Here that representation is completed, and it is proved that all extra axioms needed are consistent. Among the innovations of this paper is a definition of cdr , whose definition was left for future work in Seldin (1997, Section 9). The results are then extended to other abstract data types – those of Berardi (1993). The method used to define cdr for lists is extended to obtain the definition of an inverse for each argument of each constructor of an abstract data type. These inverses are used to prove the injective property for the constructors. Also, Dedekind's method of defining the natural numbers is used to define a predicate associated with each abstract data type, and the use of this predicate makes it unnecessary to postulate the induction principle. The only axioms left to be proved are those asserting the disjointness of the co-domains of different constructors, and it is shown that those axioms can be proved consistent.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · 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