MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528395280 · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2016.09.032

Categorical Models of the Differential λ-Calculus Revisited

2016· article· en· W2528395280 on OpenAlexaff
J.R.B. Cockett, Jonathan Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableCalculus (dental)Differential calculusMathematicsDifferential (mechanical device)Algebra over a fieldComputer sciencePure mathematicsMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper shows that the Scott-Koymans theorem for the untyped λ -calculus extends to the differential λ -calculus. The main result is that every model of the untyped differential λ -calculus may be viewed as a differential reflexive object in a Cartesian closed differential category. This extension of the Scott-Koymans theorem depends critically on unravelling the somewhat subtle issue of which idempotents can be split so that differential structure lifts to the idempotent splitting. The paper uses (total) Turing categories with “canonical codes” as the basic categorical semantics for the λ -calculus. It shows how the main result may be developed in a modular fashion by first adding left-additive structure to a Turing category, and then – on top of that – differential structure. For both levels of structure it is necessary to identify how “canonical codes” behave with respect to the added structure and, furthermore, how “universal objects” behave. The latter is closely tied to the question – which is the crux of the paper – of which idempotents can be split in these more structured settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207