MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239372240 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14658105.v1

Concurrent Transaction Logic with Priority and Timing Constraints

2021· preprint· en· W4239372240 on OpenAlexaff
Jiwen Ge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabase transactionProgramming languageParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concurrent Transaction Logic (CTTZ) is a deductive language for programming database transaction applications that integrates queries, updates, and transaction composition in a complete logical framework. The language supports all the properties of classical trans­actions and the properties found in some new transaction models, e.g., sub-transactions, transaction rollback, and concurrent transactions. The contributions of this thesis are twofold. First, it extends CTTZ to account for timing-event-based prioritized concurrent systems in which transactions may have pri­ority and timing constraints. This extension of CTTZ, here called TV-CTTZ, provides a high-level logic programming framework for specifying and simulating executions of timed transactions and trigger-events commonly present in real-time concurrent appli­cations. Second, it describes a Prolog implementation of TV-CTTZ. The implemented TV-CTTZ prototype supports the translation from TV-CTTZ to CTTZ. Underlying this protocol, we use a simplified Rate-Monotonic algorithm [10] to schedule the execution of constraint concurrent transactions and built-in timing predicates to handle transaction time-relations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207