MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855562039 · doi:10.1109/isre.1999.777995

Generating user interface prototypes from scenarios

2003· article· en· W1855562039 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageUser interfaceInterface (matter)Software engineeringFormal specificationProcess (computing)Rapid prototypingUser interface designDomain (mathematical analysis)Modeling languageFormal methodsUser requirements documentProgramming languageHuman–computer interactionSoftwareEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements capture by scenarios and user interface prototyping have become popular techniques. Yet, the transition from scenarios to formal specifications is still ill-defined, and prototyping remains weak in linking the application domain with the user interface. Most importantly, the prototyping and the scenario approaches lack integration in the overall requirements engineering process. We suggest a process that generates a user interface prototype from scenarios and yields a formal specification of the application. The approach is based on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and the generated prototypes are embedded in a user interface builder environment for further refinement. The algorithms underlying the approach have been implemented and applied on a number of examples.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.256 · 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