MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607081849

A cognitive and user centric based approach for reverse engineering tool design

2000· article· en· W1607081849 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

VenueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReverse engineeringSoftware engineeringContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)VisualizationSoftware maintenanceCognitionSystems engineeringSoftwareHuman–computer interactionSoftware systemEngineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reverse engineering tools aimed at facilitating software maintenance suffer from low adoption. Many are developed, but few are used by software engineers in performing their maintenance work. We introduce an approach for tool design that is aimed at increasing the adoptability potential of tools.Our approach is based on applying cognitive analysis to identify cognitively difficult aspects of maintenance work, then deriving cognitive requirements to address these difficulties. The approach is described in the context of the implementation of a reverse engineering tool we call DynaSee, which we have used to for the visualization of traces generated by a large telecommunications system. We describe how DynaSee addresses a specific set of cognitive difficulties.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.259 · 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