MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166726071 · doi:10.5381/jot.2007.6.3.a2

A Dynamic Operational Semantics for JVML.

2007· article· en· W2166726071 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Belblidia, Mourad Debbabi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Object Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceOperational semanticsProgramming languageWell-founded semanticsSemantics (computer science)Formal semantics (linguistics)Computational semanticsAction semanticsDenotational semantics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a , we present a dynamic semantics for the Java Virtual Machine Language (JVML).The semantics is specified in an operational style according to the syntactic structure of JVML programs.In order to ascribe meanings to threading, the semantics is made small-step and is structured in two layers: The first layer consists of judgements that capture the semantics of sequential JVML programs in isolation.The second layer consists of judgements that capture the parallel execution of JVML threads.The semantics presented in this paper is a faithful and formal transcription of JVML specification as described in [1].Besides, we provide full account details for the most technical and tricky aspects of JVML such as multi-threading, synchronization, method invocations, exception handling, object creation, object's fields manipulation, stack manipulation, local variable access, modifiers, etc.The presented semantics is, to the best of our knowledge, the first dynamic semantics of JVML that provides semantics for that many features within the same framework.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Object TechnologySame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207