MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153255549 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.1994.302453

Communicating abstract data type values in heterogeneous distributed programs

2002· article· en· W2153255549 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Huang, David Alex Lamb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNotationComputer scienceData exchangeRepresentation (politics)External Data RepresentationConvertersData typeAbstract data typeType (biology)Theoretical computer scienceElectronic data interchangeTerm (time)Selection (genetic algorithm)Programming languageComputer networkArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebMathematicsEngineeringArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the problem of communicating abstract data type (ADT) values in heterogeneous distributed programs. It focuses on addressing two fundamental issues of the problem: the selection of suitable exchange representations and the generation of data converters. Exchange representations are the ways to represent data during transmissions across networks. Data converters are programs transforming data from one representation to another; they are the major facility to deal with heterogeneity in a communication. This paper reports the following results: a term-based exchange representation, which is an abstract notation and so is particularly suitable for communicating ADT values in heterogeneous programs; and methods to generate data converters.>

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207