Proceedings of the thirty-first Australasian conference on Computer science - Volume 74
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC) series is an annual forum, bringing together research sub-disciplines in Computer Science. The meeting allows academics and researchers to discuss research topics as well as progress in the field, and policies to stimulate its growth. This volume contains papers presented at the Thirty First ACSC in Wollongong, NSW, Australia. ACSC 2008 is part of the Australasian Computer Science Week which ran from Jan 22nd to 25th, 2008. The ACSC 2008 call for papers solicited contributions in all areas of computer science research. This years conference received submissions from Australia, New Zealand, China, France, India, Iran, Jamaica, Jordon, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, UK, and Taiwan. The topics addressed by the submitted papers illustrate the broadness of the discipline. The authors categorised their submissions into one or more of the following topics: - Algorithms (9 papers) - Artificial Intelligence (7 papers) - Communications and Networks (4 papers) - Computer Architecture (2 paper) - Computer Vision (4 papers) - Databases (5 papers) - Distributed Systems (6 papers) - E-Commerce (4 papers) - Formal Methods (6 papers) - Graphics (6 papers) - High Performance Computing (7 papers) - Human-Computer Interaction (8 papers) - Mobile Computing (6 papers) - Multimedia (1 paper) - Object Oriented Systems (3 papers) - Ontologies (1 paper) - Operating Systems (5 papers) - Programming Languages (4 papers) - Robotics (1 paper) - Scientific Computing (5 papers) - Security and Trusted Systems (5 papers) - Simulation (6 papers) - Software Engineering (5 papers) - Speech (1 paper) - Theory (3 papers) - Visualization (6 papers) - Web Services (3 papers) The programme committee consisted of 28 highly regarded academics from around the globe, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and USA. All papers were sent to at least three programme committee members for review and every effort was made to obtain at least three reviews. Of the 47 papers submitted, 16 were selected for presentation at the conference. The programme committee invited Professor Joxan Jaffar, to give a keynote on Constraint Logic Programming for Program Analysis. Professor Jaffar has recently completed a stint as Dean of the School of Computing from 2001-2007 at the National University of Singapore. His interests are in programming languages and applications, with emphasis on the logic and constraint programming paradigms. Amongst his main contributions are the principles of constraint logic programming, and the widely-used CLP(R) system. The committee also invited Dr Benjamin Burton and Associate Professor Ewan Tempero to give invited talks. Dr Burtons talk was entitled Informatics Olympiads:Challenges in Programming and Algorithm Design. Associate Professor Temperos talk is entitled On Measuring Java Software.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.224 | 0.151 |
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".