MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W176454583

Requirements elicitation using BPM notations: focusing on the strategic level representation

2011· article· en· W176454583 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementRequirements elicitationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Business processBusiness process managementKnowledge managementRequirements engineeringBusinessWork in processEngineeringOperations managementSoftware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract:- Business process models (BPM) can be useful for requirements elicitation, among other uses. Since the active participation of all stakeholders is a key factor for successful requirements engineering, it is important that BPM be shared by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, organizations may end up with inconsistent BPM not covering all stakeholders ’ needs and constraints. The use of multiple levels of abstraction (MLA), such as at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, is often used in various process-oriented initiatives to facilitate the consolidation of various stakeholders ’ needs and constraints. This article surveys the use of MLA in recent BPM research publications and reports on a BPM action-research case study conducted in a Canadian organization, with the aim of exploring the usefulness of the strategic level.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.546
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207