Pattern-based parallel programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advantages of pattern-based programming have been well-documented in the sequential programming literature. However patterns have yet to make their way into mainstream parallel computing, even though several research tools support them. There are two critical shortcomings of pattern (or template) based systems for parallel programming: lack of extensibility and performance. This paper describes our approach for addressing these problems in the CO/sub 2/P/sub 3/S parallel programming system. CO/sub 2/P/sub 3/S supports multiple levels of abstraction, allowing the user to design an application with high-level patterns, but move to lower levels of abstraction for performance tuning. Patterns are implemented as parameterized templates, allowing the user the ability to customize the pattern to meet their needs. CO/sub 2/P/sub 3/S generates code that is specific to the pattern/parameter combination selected by the user. The MetaCO/sub 2/P/sub 3/S tool addresses extensibility by giving users the ability to design and add new pattern templates to CO/sub 2/P/sub 3/S. Since the pattern templates are stored in a system-independent format, they are suitable for storing in a repository to be shared throughout the user community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".