MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888000401 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3673

AN OBJECT-ORIENTED PATTERN LANGUAGE FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN

2011· article· en· W1888000401 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yadav P. Khanal, Ralph O. Buchal

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural patternSoftware design patternPattern language (formal languages)Computer scienceDesign patternEngineering design processDesign languageContext (archaeology)Object-oriented designObject (grammar)Software engineeringSystems engineeringObject-oriented programmingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineeringSoftware designSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological inertia, biases and incomplete knowledge can lead engineering designers to choose a sub-optima design. The use of design patterns can help engineering designers find better solutions. Design patterns are recurring/reusable design solutions that are known to work in a particular design situation or a context. Patterns represent both recurring problems and recurring solutions together with their relationships. A design pattern language is a collection of related design patterns covering a particular design domain. This paper describes an object-oriented framework and methodology for the construction and use of pattern languages for the design of technical systems. Key words: Engineering design patterns; Engineering design pattern language; Engineering design; object-orientation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207