MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076858065 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.71.3

Multi-level Contextual Type Theory

2011· article· en· W2076858065 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecidabilityType (biology)Dependency (UML)Type theorySubstitution (logic)Dependent typeScheme (mathematics)Upper and lower bounds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contextual type theory distinguishes between bound variables and meta-variables to write potentially incomplete terms in the presence of binders. It has found good use as a framework for concise explanations of higher-order unification, characterize holes in proofs, and in developing a foundation for programming with higher-order abstract syntax, as embodied by the programming and reasoning environment Beluga. However, to reason about these applications, we need to introduce meta^2-variables to characterize the dependency on meta-variables and bound variables. In other words, we must go beyond a two-level system granting only bound variables and meta-variables. In this paper we generalize contextual type theory to n levels for arbitrary n, so as to obtain a formal system offering bound variables, meta-variables and so on all the way to meta^n-variables. We obtain a uniform account by collapsing all these different kinds of variables into a single notion of variabe indexed by some level k. We give a decidable bi-directional type system which characterizes beta-eta-normal forms together with a generalized substitution operation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207