Hidehiko Masuhara Satoshi Matsuoka Takuo Watanabe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational reflection is beneficial in concurrent computing in offering a linguistic mechanism for incorporating user-specific policies. New challenges are (1) how to implement them, and (2) how to do so efficiently. We present efficient implementation schemes for object-oriented concurrent reflective languages using our language ABCL/R2 as an example. The schemes include: efficient lazy creation of metaobjects/meta-groups, partial compilation of scripts (methods), dynamic progression, self-reification, and light-weight objects, all appropriately integrated so that the user-level semantics remain consistent with the meta-circular definition so that the full power of reflection is retained, while achieving practical efficiency. ABCL/R2 exhibits two orders of magnitude speed improvement over its predecessor, ABCL/R, and in fact compares favorably to the ABCL/1 compiler and also C + Sun LWP, neither supporting reflection. 3 To be presented at ACM OOPSLA'92, Vancouver, Canada, Oct. 19...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".