MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009600509 · doi:10.1145/2714064.2660222

Confined gradual typing

2014· article· en· W3009600509 on OpenAlexaff
Esteban Allende, Johan Fabry, Ronald Garcia, Éric Tanter

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico
KeywordsComputer scienceTypingProgramming languageControl flowFlexibility (engineering)Overhead (engineering)Code (set theory)Reliability (semiconductor)SmalltalkException handlingObject-oriented programmingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gradual typing combines static and dynamic typing flexibly and safely in a single programming language. To do so, gradually typed languages implicitly insert casts where needed, to ensure at runtime that typing assumptions are not violated by untyped code. However, the implicit nature of cast insertion, especially on higher-order values, can jeopardize reliability and efficiency: higher-order casts can fail at any time, and are costly to execute. We propose Confined Gradual Typing, which extends gradual typing with two new type qualifiers that let programmers control the flow of values between the typed and the untyped worlds, and thereby trade some flexibility for more reliability and performance. We formally develop two variants of Confined Gradual Typing that capture different flexibility/guarantee tradeoffs. We report on the implementation of Confined Gradual Typing in Gradualtalk, a gradually-typed Smalltalk, which confirms the performance advantage of avoiding unwanted higher-order casts and the low overhead of the approach.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207