MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294911930 · doi:10.5555/569046.569055

Shader metaprogramming

2002· article· en· W2294911930 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

VenueSIGGRAPH/EUROGRAPHICS Conference On Graphics Hardware · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceShaderProgramming languageMetaprogrammingShadingModularity (biology)CompilerVisual languageSpecification languageGraphicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern graphics accelerators have embedded programmable components in the form of vertex and fragment shading units. Current APIs permit specification of the programs for these components using an assembly-language level interface. Compilers for high-level shading languages are available but these read in an external string specification, which can be inconvenient.It is possible, using standard C++, to define a high-level shading language directly in the API. Such a language can be nearly indistinguishable from a special-purpose shading language, yet permits more direct interaction with the specification of textures and parameters, simplifies implementation, and enables on-the-fly generation, manipulation, and specialization of shader programs. A shading language built into the API also permits the lifting of C++ host language type, modularity, and scoping constructs into the shading language without any additional implementation effort.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.214 · 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