MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170782811 · doi:10.1017/s1471068413000112

Editorial: 29th International Conference on Logic Programming special issue

2013· editorial· en· W2170782811 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Practice of Logic Programming · 2013
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität UlmUniversità degli Studi di UdineUniversità degli Studi di FerraraGerman University in CairoUniversità di BolognaUniversiteit GentUniversität PotsdamUniversità della CalabriaBen-Gurion University of the NegevKU LeuvenUniversidad Complutense de MadridUniversität LeipzigImperial College LondonUniversità degli Studi di ParmaUniversity of AlbertaUniversiteit van AmsterdamNational University of SingaporeUniversidade do PortoUniversity of CambridgeInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)Simon Fraser UniversityArizona State UniversityTexas Tech University
KeywordsComputer sciencePublicationLibrary scienceLogic programmingEngineering ethicsProgramming languagePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP) have had several publishers, including MIT Press and Springer's Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Beginning in 2010, the proceedings have been published in a dual format: with regular papers contained in a special issue of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), and technical communications as a Dagstuhl LIPics series publication. The reason for the change was that compared to researchers in other fields, computer scientists publish more in conferences or symposia and less in journals. The thinking went that since many ICLP papers are of journal quality – or nearly so – why not publish them in a journal straight away? And why not TPLP?

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.294 · 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