MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230647486 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-4533-0_14

Introducing Object-Oriented Programming

2019· book-chapter· en· W4230647486 on OpenAlexaff
Sloan Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Niagara
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgramming languageComputer sciencePython (programming language)Object-oriented programmingReuseCode reuseProgramming paradigmObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceSoftwareEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until now we have been using Python as a structured language. Each line is executed one after the other. If we want to reuse code, we create functions. There is another way to program called object-oriented programming . In object-oriented programming we create little objects that not old hold our data but group the operations – the things we want to do with that data – with the data itself. The main features of object-oriented programming, or OOP for short, are

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.018

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApress eBooksSame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207