Using the General Intensional Programming System (GIPSY) for Evaluation of Higher-Order Intensional Logic (HOIL) Expressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The General Intensional Programming System (GIPSY) has been built around the Lucid family of intensional programming languages that rely on the higher-order intensional logic (HOIL) to provide context-oriented multidimensional reasoning of intensional expressions. HOIL combines functional programming with various intensional logics to allow explicit context expressions to be evaluated as first-class values that can be passed as parameters to functions and return as results with an appropriate set of operators defined on contexts. GIPSY's frameworks are implemented in Java as a collection of replaceable components for the compilers of various Lucid dialects and the demand-driven eductive evaluation engine that can run distributively. GIPSY provides support for hybrid programming models that couple intensional and imperative languages for a variety of needs. Explicit context expressions limit the scope of evaluation of math expressions (effectively a Lucid program is a mathematics or physics expression constrained by the context) in tensor physics, regular math in multiple dimensions, etc., and for cyberforensic reasoning as one of the use-cases of interest. Thus, GIPSY is a support testbed for HOIL-based languages some of which enable such reasoning, as in formal cyberforensic case analysis with event reconstruction. In this paper we discuss the GIPSY architecture, its evaluation engine and example use-cases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".