MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Making patterns better design tools: Requirements analysis for a family of navigators for design pattern catalogs

2005· article· en· W10725704 on OpenAlexaff
Vojislav D. Radonjic, Jean‐Pierre Corriveau

Bibliographic record

VenueIASTED Conference on Software Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoftware Engineering and Design Patterns
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware design patternObstacleEmbodied cognitionSchema (genetic algorithms)Point (geometry)Human–computer interactionDesign patternSoftware designGenerative grammarGenerative DesignSoftware engineeringRepresentation (politics)SoftwareKnowledge managementData scienceArtificial intelligenceSoftware developmentInformation retrievalProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. It is widely recognized that the software community could make patterns an even more effective tool in problem solving. However, a major obstacle is organizing the system of concepts embodied in patterns from a point of view of a designer faced with design decision-making: the need to navigate spaces of problems and solutions presented in each pattern and their catalogs and the need to track the choices made. This paper proposes a knowledge representation schema based on generative modeling techniques that make explicit what is in design patterns, as well as how navigation and recording of design choices can be performed with the help of such a model. 1

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASTED Conference on Software EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering and Design PatternsFrench-language works237,207