Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Generic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 8th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Generic Programming (WGP'12), held in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 9th September 2012. The workshop is sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN and is affiliated with the 17th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP'12). Previous Workshops on Generic Programming have been held in Marstrand and Ponte de Lima (affiliated with MPC), Nottingham (informal workshop), Dagstuhl (IFIP TC2/IFIP WG2.1 Working Conference), Oxford and Utrecht (informal workshop), Portland, Victoria, Edinburgh, Baltimore and Tokyo (affiliated with ICFP). The call for papers generated 9 submissions. Each paper was evaluated by at least three members of the program committee, with the help of additional reviewers. During a five-day virtual meeting, the program committee selected 7 papers for presentation at the workshop. The papers cover a wide range of generic programming themes: from observing and exploiting patterns in unusual places via improving or expanding libraries for datatype-generic programming to techniques for dealing with embedded languages, handling binding, polymorphic types, and even kinds. We hope that the proceedings will serve as a valuable reference for both researchers and students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".