MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172127605 · doi:10.1109/icci.1993.315376

On the concurrency of C++

2002· article· en· W2172127605 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersLakehead University
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageConcurrencyThread (computing)SyntaxSemantics (computer science)Process calculusInterface description languageFunction (biology)Concurrency controlObject (grammar)Set (abstract data type)Theoretical computer scienceUser interfaceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a proposal for introducing concurrency to a sequential object-oriented programming language, C++. We call the extended language CC++. It distinguishes two categories of objects: process objects and class objects. Process objects are coarse-grain concurrent entities. Each process object has its own sequential control thread and an optional public interface accessible by other process objects. A set of process objects is synchronized and coordinated by a remote function call (RFC) mechanism. Indeterministic RFC's are selected or sequenced by guarded function declarations. Important objectives of this design are simple syntax, clear semantics and strong expressive power. Examples illustrating CC++ features are given.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207