MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092185282 · doi:10.1017/s0960129502003717

The logic of linear functors

2002· article· en· W2092185282 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Blute, J.R.B. Cockett, R. A. G. Seely

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctorLinear logicSubstructural logicMathematicsNoncommutative geometryIntermediate logicMultimodal logicAlgebra over a fieldPredicate logicHigher-order logicNormal modal logicLinear temporal logicModal logicDescription logicComputer scienceTheoretical computer sciencePure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmModal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a family of logics whose categorical semantics is based on functors with structure rather than on categories with structure. This allows the consideration of logics that contain possibly distinct logical subsystems whose interactions are mediated by functorial mappings. For example, within one unified framework, we shall be able to handle logics as diverse as modal logic, ordinary linear logic, and the ‘noncommutative logic’ of Abrusci and Ruet, a variant of linear logic that has both commutative and noncommutative connectives. Although this paper will not consider in depth the categorical basis of this approach to logic, preferring instead to emphasise the syntactic novelties that it generates in the logic, we shall focus on the particular case when the logics are based on a linear functor, in order to give a definite presentation of these ideas. However, it will be clear that this approach to logic has considerable generality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Structures in Computer ScienceSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207