MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150922760 · doi:10.1145/1167473.1167500

Generic ownership for generic Java

2006· article· en· W2150922760 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMarsden FundEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsComputer scienceJavaProgramming languageMainstreamReuseObject-oriented programmingScalaEncapsulation (networking)Computer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ownership types enforce encapsulation in object-oriented programs by ensuring that objects cannot be leaked beyond object(s) that own them. Existing ownership programming languages either do not support parametric polymorphism (type genericity) or attempt to add it on top of ownership restrictions. Generic Ownership provides per-object ownership on top of a sound generic imperative language. The resulting system not only provides ownership guarantees comparable to established systems, but also requires few additional language mechanisms due to full reuse of parametric polymorphism. We formalise the core of Generic Ownership, highlighting that only restriction of this calls and owner subtype preservation are required to achieve deep ownership. Finally we describe how Ownership Generic Java (OGJ) was implemented as a minimal extension to Generic Java in the hope of bringing ownership types into mainstream programming.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207