MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113738028

Exploiting Roles and Responsibilities to Generate Code in a Distributed Design-Pattern-Based Programming System.

2006· article· en· W113738028 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoftware Engineering and Design Patterns
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgrammerSoftware design patternProgramming languagePlug-inJavaSoftware engineeringEclipseCode (set theory)Design patternProcess (computing)Class (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceSoftware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of a design pattern can be viewed as a process of selecting classes to play the roles needed by the pattern. To ensure that a class can play a role, each role has a set of responsibilities associated with it. When all responsibilities are satisfied, the pattern implementation is complete. Normally a programmer must write code for the responsibilities. However, the implementation of responsibilities can often be derived from information in the application or from user input, and then automatically generated. This paper describes a new approach that uses roles and responsibilities to generate code for an almost-complete application architecture in a pattern-based framework, leaving only application-specific code for the developer. We demonstrate this approach using RMA, an Eclipse plugin for writing Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) applications based on an existing J2EE framework.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering and Design PatternsFrench-language works237,207