Formal derivation of functional architectural design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the drawbacks of mainstream design methods is that their processes are based on crafty procedures rather than on rigorous mathematically founded procedures. Software designers spend a lot of time attempting to come up with an Architectural Design that is very often inefficient and not directly and systematically derived from the requirements. The lack of a systematic and a mathematical way to decompose the requirements into simpler pieces (components) leads to inconsistency of different parts of the designed system. This paper proposes a two stages architectural design as well as attempts to answer the following questions: (1) How can we derive the functional structure of the system (i.e., functional architectural design) from its functional requirements? (2) What are the mathematical properties of an architectural component? (3) What kind of connectors might we have between these components? We adopt a state-oriented relational approach to the specification of the requirements and to the specification and the derivation of the architectural design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it