MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125986258 · doi:10.1093/logcom/exaf073

Advances in computational logic (CILC 2024)

2025· article· en· W7125986258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emanuele De Angelis, Maurizio Proietti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Logic and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Association (psychology)Computational logicMathematical logicComputational modelComputational complexity theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue includes a collection of extended and revised versions of papers presented at the 39th Italian Conference on Computational Logic1 (CILC 2024), which was held in Rome at the National Research Council of Italy on June 26–28. The Italian Conference on Computational Logic is the annual meeting of the Italian Association for Logic Programming2 (GULP – Gruppo Ricercatori e Utenti Logic Programming). The Conference, since its first edition, held in Genoa in 1986, has been an important occasion for meeting and exchanging ideas and experiences among national and international researchers and practitioners working in the field of computational logic. CILC 2024 was attended by more than 50 participants from universities and research centres all over Italy, as well as from Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Poland, Romania and the UK. The conference featured 34 presentations, including three invited talks, one tutorial, original contributed papers and papers already published in related venues, covering many aspects of computational logic from fundamental and theoretical results to applications, experimental experiences and system descriptions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.040

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueJournal of Logic and ComputationSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207