MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004191551 · doi:10.1145/331795.331862

Aristotle and object-oriented programming

2000· article· en· W3004191551 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Rayside, Gerard T. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsSt. Jerome's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPComputer scienceObject (grammar)Programming languageFunctional logic programmingProgramming paradigmArtificial intelligenceInductive programmingProcedural programmingLogic programmingEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifying is a central activity in object-oriented programming and distinguishes it from procedural programming. Traditional logic, initiated by Aristotle, assigns classification to our first activity in reasoning, whereby we come to know what a thing is . Such a grasp of the thing's whatness is the foundation for all further reasoning about it. This connection between Aristotle's way of classifying and object-oriented programming is sometimes acknowledged, but rarely explored in depth. 1 We explore this relation more closely and more carefully, in the hope that a better understanding of classification and programming can be gained from a study of philosophy than from many current text books on object-oriented programming.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGCSE BulletinSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207