MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045110728 · doi:10.1145/2721956.2721991

Using dynamic mixins to implement design patterns

2014· article· en· W2045110728 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReuseImplementationProgramming languageObject-oriented programmingSoftware design patternComposition (language)Object (grammar)Sample (material)Focus (optics)Design patternSoftware engineeringObject-oriented designReusabilityArtificial intelligenceSoftwareEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design patterns are used as a means of documenting solutions to commonly occurring problems. In this work, we focus on object-oriented patterns that require object extension. Typically, the implementation of such patterns is done using object composition. Dynamic mixin composition is proposed as a viable alternative in this paper. The issues of safety and reuse are considered during the comparison of the two approaches. A new mixin language is defined to illustrate the benefits of mixin composition. Then, a survey of sample GOF pattern implementations using both approaches is critiqued and finally some patterns specifically designed to address the shortcomings of object composition are critically reviewed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.244 · 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