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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its inception in 1987, Haskell has provided a focal point for research in lazy functional programming. During this time the language has continually evolved, as a result of both theoretical advances and practical experience. Haskell has proved to be a powerful tool for many kinds of programming tasks, and applications in industry are beginning to emerge. The recent definition of Haskell 98 provides a long-awaited stable version of the language, but there are many exciting possibilities for future versions of Haskell. The fourth Haskell Workshop will be held as part of the PLI 2000 colloquium on Principles, Logics, and Implementations of high-level programming languages in Montreal, 17th September 2000. Previous Haskell Workshops have been held in Paris (1999), Amsterdam (1997) and La Jolla (1995). Following on from these workshops, a special issue of the Journal of Functional Programming will be devoted to Haskell. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: * Critiques of Haskell 98; * New proposals for Haskell; * Applications or case studies; * Programming techniques; * Reasoning about programs; * Semantic issues; * Pedagogical issues; * Implementation. Contributors to any of the Haskell workshops are invited to submit full papers to the special issue on Haskell, but submission is open to everyone. Submissions should be sent to guest editor (address below), with a copy to Nasreen Ahmad (nasreen@dcs.gla.ac.uk). Submitted articles should be sent in postscript format, preferably gzipped and uuencoded. In addition, please send, as plain text, title, abstract, and contact information. The submission deadline is 1st February 2001. For other submission details, please consult an issue of the Journal of Functional Programming or see the Journal's web pages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it