Proceedings of Formal Methods 2009 Doctoral Symposium, November 6, 2009, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the third Doctoral Symposium of the International Symposium on Formal Methods.This year, the Formal Methods Symposium and its Doctoral Symposium are organized in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.It is also part of the Formal Methods Week featuring a number of scientific events dedicated to Formal Methods and their application.The call for papers for the Doctoral Symposium was sent out in July 2009 and has attracted 20 papers from 13 different countries.The review committee then spent about one month reviewing the submitted papers and discussing them.The final decision was a particularly difficult one since 14 out of 20 papers received an average positive score from the reviewers; hence, many good submissions had to be rejected due to the limited time dedicated to the symposium and to guarantee sufficient room for discussion for the accepted papers.Finally, the review committee accepted 10 papers from 6 different countries, which are presented in this proceedings.We would like to thank several people and organizations which helped us in organizing this symposium.First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge the help and support provided by the FM 2009 organization committee and program co-chairs: Tijn Borghuis, Erik de Vink, Jos Baeten, Ana Cavalcanti and Dennis Dams.We are grateful to Formal Methods Europe association for providing generous travel grants and free tickets to the conference dinner for the participating students.Also, we would like to thank our Review and Examination Committees, as well as the additional sub-referees for their time and effort in reviewing and selecting among the submitted papers.Our best thanks go to Professor Cliff B. Jones for accepting our invitation to give an invited talk in this symposium.Finally we would like to thank the students who have
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.024 |
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".