MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978061107 · doi:10.1145/1509239.1509259

Concept analysis for product line requirements

2009· article· en· W1978061107 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 institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware product lineModularity (biology)Product lineFormal concept analysisProduct (mathematics)Non-functional requirementQuality (philosophy)Requirements engineeringRequirements elicitationSoftware engineeringSoftwareSystems engineeringSoftware developmentEngineeringManufacturing engineeringProgramming languageSoftware constructionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional methods characterize a software product line's requirements using either functional or quality criteria. This appears to be inadequate to assess modularity, detect interferences, and analyze trade-offs. We take advantage of both symmetric and asymmetric views of aspects, and perform formal concept analysis to examine the functional and quality requirements of an evolving product line. The resulting concept lattice provides a rich notion which allows remarkable insights into the modularity and interactions of requirements. We formulate a number of problems that aspect-oriented product line requirements engineering should address, and present our solutions according to the concept lattice. We describe a case study applying our approach to analyze a mobile game product line's requirements, and review lessons learned.

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 score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.268 · 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