Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, having in mind the construction of concurrent systems from components, we discuss the difference between actions and events. For this discussion, we propose an(other) architecture description language in which actions and events are made explicit in the description of a component and a system. Our work builds from the ideas set forth by the categorical approach to the construction of software based systems from components advocated by Goguen and Burstall, in the context of institutions, and by Fiadeiro and Maibaum, in the context of temporal logic. In this context, we formalize a notion of a component as an element of an indexed category and we elicit a notion of a morphism between components as morphisms of this category. Moreover, we elaborate on how this formalization captures, in a convenient manner, the underlying structure of a component and the basic interaction mechanisms for putting components together. Further, we advance some ideas on how certain matters related to the openness and the compositionality of a component/system may be described in terms of classes of morphisms, thus potentially supporting a compositional rely/guarantee reasoning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".