Proceedings of the Third C* Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The C* Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (C3S2E) was established in 2008. C3S2E 2010 is the third annual meeting in the C3S2E conference series and is held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, during May 19-20, 2010. The conference aims to address the need of the academic community in computer science and software engineering. It brings together academics, government and industry professionals to discuss recent progress and challenges in a broad range of areas in the field of computer science and software engineering such as algorithms and theory, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, computer architecture, computer graphics, computer security, computer vision, data mining, databases, image processing, information retrieval, machine learning, as well as software engineering. C3S2E 2010 also serves as a platform for theoreticians and practitioners to exchange their original research ideas on academic or application aspects of computing and engineering of software systems, present their new findings on theoretical or practical aspects of computer science and software engineering, share their experiences on integrating new technologies into products and applications, discuss their work on applying computing and software engineering to real-life situations, describe their development and operations of challenging computing related systems, and identify unsolved challenges. Although it is the third time C3S2E is held, this comprehensive conference has grown from a Canadian conference into an international conference. For C3S2E 2010, we continue to keep our tradition for inviting international experts in various areas of computer science and software engineering to join our team of international program committee. As a result, our Program Committee consists of professionals from different parts of the world including Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Portugal, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, and UK. This committee has done an excellent job in finishing the single-blind review and on-line double-blind debate processes in record time. On average, about 90% of reviews were submitted by the due date and about 3.67 reviews were received for each paper. In terms of submissions, we have attracted many high-quality papers submitted by authors globally. The paper selection process was thorough and competitive. On average, each paper was refereed by at least three reviewers, and about 18% of submissions were accepted as full research papers. This year, we have an intensive program that spans over two days. In addition to research papers and student posters, we also include position papers, which allow authors to give their opinions and vision on exploring new concepts and research directions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.139 | 0.073 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".