MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237086958 · doi:10.1145/1013963

Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Principles and practice of declarative programming

2004· paratext· en· W4237086958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageDeclarative programmingProgramming paradigmInductive programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume consists of the refereed papers presented at the 6th ACM-SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, held in Verona, Italy, August 24-26, 2004. PPDP'04 is the sixth in this series of international meetings on declarative programming. The previous meetings were held in Uppsala, Sweden in 2003, Pittsburgh, USA in 2002, Firenze, Italy in 2001, Montreal, Canada in 2000, and Paris, France in 1999.The goal of the PPDP conferences is to present research on the use of declarative methods in programming and on the design, implementation and application of programming languages that support such methods. The emphasis is on ideas that transcend the boundaries of any one declarative formalism, thus being of interest to those working in any declarative paradigm.44 papers were submitted to the conference. Each paper was reviewed by at least 3 program committee members or their designees. All papers on which there was disagreement had at least 4 readers. After intensive electronic discussion, the Program committee decided to accept 21 papers. In addition to the accepted papers, the conference included talks by five invited speakers: Sheila McIlraith, Yannis Smaragdakis, Ehud Shapiro, Tom Henzinger, and Greg Morrisett. The invited speakers were shared with other co-located meetings: PEPM 2004 -- Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, LOPSTR 2004 -- International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation, and SAS 2004 -- Static Analysis Symposium.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.030

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207