MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134649613 · doi:10.1017/s0960129511000132

Classical mathematics for a constructive world

2011· article· en· W2134649613 on OpenAlexaff
Russell O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructiveConstructive set theoryAxiomIntuitionistic logicPerspective (graphical)Type theoryMathematicsConstructive proofFunction (biology)Algebra over a fieldType (biology)Calculus (dental)Computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligencePure mathematicsLinear logicAxiom of choiceSet theoryProgramming languageProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive theorem provers based on dependent type theory have the flexibility to support both constructive and classical reasoning. Constructive reasoning is supported natively by dependent type theory, and classical reasoning is typically supported by adding additional non-constructive axioms. However, there is another perspective that views constructive logic as an extension of classical logic. This paper will illustrate how classical reasoning can be supported in a practical manner inside dependent type theory without additional axioms. We will show several examples of how classical results can be applied to constructive mathematics. Finally, we will show how to extend this perspective from logic to mathematics by representing classical function spaces using a weak value monad.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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