MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573653079

Ontological semantics for the use of UML in conceptual modeling

2007· article· en· W1573653079 on OpenAlexaff
Xueming Li, Jeffrey Parsons

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnified Modeling LanguageApplications of UMLComputer scienceUML toolObject Constraint LanguageModeling languageProgramming languageSoftware engineeringSemantics (computer science)Class diagramOntologyConceptual modelMetamodelingSoftwareDatabase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its origins in software modeling, there has been growing interest in using the Unified Modeling Language (UML) for conceptual modeling of application domains. However, the UML has many constructs that are purely software oriented. Consequently, the suitability of the UML for modeling “real world ” phenomena has been questioned. This research aims to assign real-world semantics to a core set of UML constructs by proposing a set of principles for mapping these constructs to the formal ontology of Mario Bunge, which has been widely used in information systems modeling contexts. We conclude by outlining how the proposed principles can be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in supporting conceptual modeling using UML. Keywords: UML, Ontology, Conceptual Modeling. 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207