Proceedings of the joint ACM SIGSOFT conference -- QoSA and ACM SIGSOFT symposium -- ISARCS on Quality of software architectures -- QoSA and architecting critical systems -- ISARCS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the Seventh International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on the of Software Architectures -- QoSA 2011 and the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Architecting Critical Systems -- ISARCS 2011. The goal of QoSA (Quality of Software Architectures) is to address aspects of software architecture focusing on quality characteristics and how these relate to the design of software architectures. Specific issues of interest are defining quality measures, evaluating and managing architecture quality, linking architecture to requirements and implementation, and preserving architecture quality throughout the lifetime of the system. Past themes for QoSA include Research into Practice -- Reality and Gaps (2010), Architectures for Adaptive Software Systems (2009), and Models and Architecture (2008). At QoSA 2011, researchers discussed approaches to quality evaluation and management that address different stages of the software life cycle, such as requirements, design, implementation, testing and maintenance following QoSA's theme Quality throughout the Software Lifecycle. ISARCS 2011 is the second edition of a new symposium in the area of architectural design for dependable, safe and secure systems. ISARCS focuses on both theory and practice for architecting critical systems. Architecting such systems faces the big challenge of guaranteeing both the perceived and objective dependability and security, even if accepting service degradation. This requires trade-off among the various attributes of dependability and security that cannot be considered in isolation. The present edition sees contributions on architecting safe and secure systems in different application domains. QoSA and ISARCS have been organized as part of the federated event CompArch, a series of federated events on Component-based Software and Software Architecture. In addition to QoSA 2011 and ISARCS, CompARch 2011 includes CBSE 2011, the 14th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering and WCOP 2011, the 16th International Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming. CompArch 2011 was co-located with WICSA 2011 (9th Working International Conference on Software Architecture). We had a great cooperation with WICSA organizers, the general chair Raghu Sangwan, the PC chairs Patricia Lago and Rich Hilliard and Industry Chair Olaf Zimmermann. CompArch and WICSA were fortunate to have four prominent keynote speakers. Pamela Zave (AT&T Laboratories - Research, USA) and Bran Selic (Malina Software Corp.) gave the conference keynotes, and Ian Gorton (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) and Michael Stal (Siemens Research and Technologies) the Industry Day keynotes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.039 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".