MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992480192

Lincx: a linear logical framework with first-class contexts

2017· dissertation· en· W6992480192 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesMcGill University
KeywordsDecidabilityContext (archaeology)Linear logicGeneralizationJoinsLogical frameworkSet (abstract data type)Venn diagram
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear logic provides an elegant framework for modelling stateful, imperative and con- current systems by viewing a context of assumptions as a set of resources. However, mech- anizing the meta-theory of such systems remains a challenge, as we need to manage and reason about mixed contexts of linear and intuitionistic assumptions. We present Lincx, a contextual linear logical framework with first-class mixed contexts. Lincx allows us to model (linear) abstract syntax trees as syntactic structures that may depend on intuitionistic and linear assumptions. It can also serve as a foundation for reasoning about such structures. Lincx extends the linear logical framework LLF with first-class (linear) contexts and an equational theory of context joins that can otherwise be very tedious and intricate to develop. This work may be also viewed as a generalization of contextual LF that supports both intuitionistic and linear variables, functions, and assumptions. We describe a decidable type-theoretic foundation for Lincx that only characterizes canonical forms and show that our equational theory of context joins is associative and commu- tative. Finally, we outline how Lincx may serve as a practical foundation for mechanizing the meta-theory of stateful systems.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207