MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414988709 · doi:10.1145/3763096

Qualified Types with Boolean Algebras

2025· article· en· W4414988709 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Lee, Jonathan Lindegaard Starup, Ondřej Lhoták, Magnus Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType (biology)Stone's representation theorem for Boolean algebrasTwo-element Boolean algebraComplete Boolean algebraBoolean algebraBoolean expressionAlgebra over a fieldDomain (mathematical analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose type qualifiers based on Boolean algebras. Traditional type systems with type qualifiers have been based on lattices, but lattices lack the ability to express exclusion . We argue that Boolean algebras, which permit exclusion, are a practical and useful choice of domain for qualifiers. In this paper, we present a calculus System F <:B that extends System F <: with type qualifiers over Boolean algebras and has support for negation, qualifier polymorphism, and subqualification. We illustrate how System F <:B can be used as a design recipe for a type and effect system, System F <:BE , with effect polymorphism, subeffecting, and polymorphic effect exclusion. We use System F <:BE to establish formal foundations of the type and effect system of the Flix programming language. We also pinpoint and implement a practical form of subeffecting: abstraction-site subeffecting. Experimental results show that abstraction-site subeffecting allows us to eliminate all effect upcasts present in the current Flix Standard Library.

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)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207