Package-oriented software engineering: a generic architecture
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New methodologies and better techniques are the rule in software engineering, and users of large and complex methodologies benefit greatly from specialized software support tools. However, developing such tools is both difficult and expensive, because developers must implement a lot of functionality in a short time. A promising solution is component-based software development, in particular package-oriented programming (POP). POP fails, however, to satisfy all the requirements of large, complex software engineering tasks. A more generic POP architecture would better serve the development of software engineering environments for large and complex methodologies. Such an architecture emerged from our development experiences with two software engineering research tools: Holmes, a domain analysis support tool; and Egidio, a unified-modeling-language-based business modeling tool. We found this particular architecture simple to understand, easy to implement, and a natural candidate for a generic POP architecture. Our generic architecture satisfies the additional requirements we deem important for larger, more complex software engineering activities. Our experiences show that the strength of this architecture lies in its simplicity and ability to work with multiple users and quickly integrate a wide variety of applications. It is not perfect, but we present it as a first step toward a more general package-oriented architecture to encourage further research in this area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it