MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136016475 · doi:10.1017/s0269888907001178

Implementing logic spreadsheets in LESS

2007· article· en· W2136016475 on OpenAlexaff
André Valente, David Van Brackle, Hans Chalupsky, Gary Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Engineering Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpreadsheets and End-User Computing
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencySmall Business Innovation ResearchUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness logicVariety (cybernetics)Programming languageLogic programmingSoftware engineeringKnowledge representation and reasoningRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spreadsheets are a widespread tool for a variety of tasks, particularly in business settings. Spreadsheet users employ a form of programming that, although popular, is highly error-prone and has limited expressiveness. A promising approach to overcome these shortcomings is to augment spreadsheets with logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R) functionality. In this paper, we present Logic Embedded in SpreadSheets (LESS), a system which integrates PowerLoom, a highly expressive logic-based KR&R system, with Microsoft (MS) Excel. The design of LESS provides different tiers of functionality that explore trade-offs between direct access to the underlying logic engine and user-friendly support for spreadsheets users. A prototype of LESS was implemented as an MS Excel add-in.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Knowledge Engineering ReviewSame topicSpreadsheets and End-User ComputingFrench-language works237,207