Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume contains the papers presented at the Third Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications (LDTA ′03), held in Warsaw, Poland, April 6, 2003, as a satellite event of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS ′03). LDTA ′03 continues the tradition established with the previous two instances of the workshop which were held in Genoa, Italy (2001) and Grenoble, France (2002), as satellite events of ETAPS. The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in the field of formal language definitions and language technologies, with a special emphasis on tools developed for or with these language definitions. Benefits of such active research fields are, among others: program analysis, transformation, generation; the formal analysis of language properties, and the automatic generation of language processing tools. The workshop welcomes contributions on all aspects of formal language definitions, with special emphasis on applications and tools developed for or with these language definitions. The LDTA ′03 program consists of 11 regular papers, which were selected from 25 submissions, and one invited talk by Hassan Aït Kaci on An Abstract and Reusable Programming Language Architecture . The selected papers cover a broad range of themes such as visual languages, parsing, refactoring and coverage techniques, attribute grammars, and frameworks for datatype transformation and register allocation. We also wish to express our gratitude to all the members of the program committee, and to all the outside referees for their care in reviewing the papers. We would like to thank the ETAPS organizing committee for taking care of the local organization of the workshop. Furthermore, we are also very pleased with the sponsorship of ACM SIGPLAN and with the publication of these proceedings in the Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS) by Elsevier. Barrett Bryant João Saraiva Birmingham (USA) and Braga (Portugal), April, 2003 Organizing Committee Isabelle Attali , INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France Mark van den Brand , CWI Amsterdam, The Netherlands Pierre-Etienne Moreau , Loria Nancy, France Program Committee Don Batory , University of Texas at Austin, USA Barrett Bryant , University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA (co-chair) Uwe Glaesser , Simon Fraser University, Canada Katsuhiko Gondow , Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan Uwe Kastens , University of Paderborn, Germany Paul Klint , CWI, The Netherlands Jan Madey , University of Warsaw, Poland Marjan Mernik , University of Maribor, Slovenia Thomas Noll , University of Aachen, Germany Oege de Moor , Oxford University Computing Laboratory, England Peter D. Mosses , BRICS, University of Aarhus, Denmark João Saraiva , University of Minho, Portugal (co-chair) Eelco Visser , University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.529 | 0.378 |
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".