MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121166249 · doi:10.1017/s0960129504004293

A relational model of non-deterministic dataflow

2004· article· en· W2121166249 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Hildebrandt, Prakash Panangaden, Glynn Winskel

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDataflowBisimulationComputer scienceAxiomCategorical variableConcurrencyCongruence (geometry)Monotone polygonSemantics (computer science)Theoretical computer scienceAutomatonRelational calculusAlgebra over a fieldMathematicsRelational modelProgramming languagePure mathematicsRelational database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recast dataflow in a modern categorical light using profunctors as a generalisation of relations. The well-known causal anomalies associated with relational semantics of indeterminate dataflow are avoided, but still we preserve much of the intuitions of a relational model. The development fits with the view of categories of models for concurrency and the general treatment of bisimulation they provide. In particular, it fits with the recent categorical formulation of feedback using traced monoidal categories. The payoffs are: (1) explicit relations to existing models and semantics, especially the usual axioms of monotone IO automata are read off from the definition of profunctors; (2) a new definition of bisimulation for dataflow, the proof of the congruence of which benefits from the preservation properties associated with open maps; and (3) a treatment of higher-order dataflow as a biproduct, essentially by following the geometry of interaction programme.

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)0.005
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
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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