MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038120395 · doi:10.1145/1869459.1869521

Registration-based language abstractions

2010· article· en· W2038120395 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenter for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProgrammerConstruct (python library)Computer scienceProgramming languageLanguage constructKey (lock)Very high-level programming languageHigh-level programming languageFourth-generation programming languageConstructed languageProgramming paradigmArtificial intelligenceFunctional logic programmingLinguisticsInductive programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programming language innovation has been hindered by the difficulty of making changes to existing languages. A key source of difficulty is the tyrannical nature of existing approaches to realizing languages -- adding a new language construct means that any tool, document or programmer that works with the language must be prepared to deal with that construct.A registration-based approach makes it possible to define language constructs that are not tyrannical. They are instead transient -- the program appears to be written using the constructs only so long as a given programmer wants to see it that way. This approach may have the potential to greatly facilitate programming language innovation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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