MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172439251 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2008010102

On the Big-R Notation for Describing Interative and Recursive Behaviors

2008· article· en· W2172439251 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

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of NottinghamUniversity of OxfordNottingham Trent University
KeywordsNotationComputer scienceMathematical notationProgramming languageTheoretical computer scienceProcess (computing)SoftwareProcess calculusIterative and incremental developmentSoftware engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iterative and recursive control structures are the most fundamental mechanisms of computing that make programming more effective and expressive. However, these constructs are perhaps the most diverse and confusable instructions in programming languages at both syntactic and semantic levels. This article introduces the big-R notation that provides a unifying mathematical treatment of iterations and recursions in computing. Mathematical models of iterations and recursions are developed using logical inductions. Based on the mathematical model of the big-R notation, fundamental properties of iterative and recursive behaviors of software are comparatively analyzed. The big-R notation has been adopted and implemented in Real-Time Process Algebra (RTPA) and its supporting tools. Case studies demonstrate that a convenient notation may dramatically reduce the difficulty and complexity in expressing a frequently used and highly recurring concept and notion in computing and software engineering.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.244 · 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