MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104249103 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030616

Augmenting spreadsheets with constraint satisfaction

2011· article· en· W2104249103 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
TopicSpreadsheets and End-User Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint programmingComputer scienceConstraint satisfaction problemConstraint satisfactionUSableConstraint (computer-aided design)PopularityUsabilityConstraint logic programmingProgramming languageInterface (matter)Software engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebMathematical optimizationOperating systemEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of the spreadsheet attests to its success at providing a usable programming interface to users with no programming experience. This success prompts the question of how a spreadsheet could be extended to be more powerful while retaining its ease of use. Adding the ability to express and satisfy constraints within the spreadsheet would enable it to be used to solve more complex problems. In this paper, a model for adding constraint satisfaction to a spreadsheet is given. It is designed to be spreadsheet-centric, in that the means to define and solve constraint networks is designed to be familiar to spreadsheet users. The model is implemented using Microsoft Excel and is contrasted with other models of adding constraint satisfaction to spreadsheets.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpreadsheets and End-User ComputingFrench-language works237,207