MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W95729046

Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Principles and practice of declarative programming

2001· article· en· W95729046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rocco De Nicola, Harald Søndergaard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeclarative programmingProgramming languageFunctional programmingModularity (biology)Programming paradigmProgramming language theoryFifth-generation programming languageInductive programmingConstraint programmingMathematicsStochastic programming
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume contains the papers and abstracts presented at PPDP'01, the Third International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, held in Florence, Italy, September 5-7, 2001.Together with the Sixth International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP) and a number of associated workshops, PPDP'01 has formed a federation of conferences known as Colloquium on Principles, Logics, and Implementations of high-level programming languages (PLI 2001). Previous PLI colloquia were held in Paris, in September 1999, and in Montreal, in September 2000. These events are organised by SIGPLAN, ACM's Special Interest Group on Programming Languages.PPDP 2001 aims to stimulate research on the use of declarative methods in programming and on the design, implementation and application of programming languages that support such methods. Topics of interest include any aspect related to understanding, integrating and extending programming paradigms such as those for functional, logic, constraint and object-oriented programming; concurrent extensions and mobile computing; type theory; support for modularity; use of logical methods in the design of program development tools; program analysis and verification; abstract interpretation; development ofimplementation methods; and application of the relevant paradigms and associated methods in industry and education.A total of 40 submissions were received in response to the call for papers. The START conference management system was used for the handling of electronic submissions, for allocation of reviewing duties, and for filing of reviews. The program committee meeting was conducted electronically. Each paper was reviewed by at least three referees and 19 papers were selected for publication. In addition to the regular paper presentations, the scientific program included three invited talks, by Javier Esparza (University of Edinburgh), Andrew Gordon (Microsoft Research Cambridge), and Dave Schmidt (Kansas State University).

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207