MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413966238 · doi:10.70930/tac/e17sf9pc

Adjunction Models For Call-By-Push-Value With Stacks

2005· article· en· W4413966238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Blain Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjunctionComputer scienceValue (mathematics)MathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Call-by-push-value is a "semantic machine code", providing a set of simple primitives from which both the call-by-value and call-by-name paradigms are built.We present its operational semantics as a stack machine, suggesting a term judgement of stacks.We then see that CBPV, incorporating these stack terms, has a simple categorical semantics based on an adjunction between values and stacks.There are no coherence requirements.We describe this semantics incrementally.First, we introduce locally indexed categories and the opGrothendieck construction, and use these to give the basic structure for interpreting the three judgements: values, stacks and computations.Then we look at the universal property required to interpret each type constructor.We define a model to be a strong adjunction with countable coproducts, countable products and exponentials.We see a wide range of instances of this structure: we give examples for divergence, storage, erratic choice, continuations, possible worlds and games (with or without a bracketing condition), in each case resolving the strong monad from the literature into a strong adjunction.And we give ways of constructing models from other models.Finally, we see that call-by-value and call-by-name are interpreted within the Kleisli and co-Kleisli parts, respectively, of a call-by-push-value adjunction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207