MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979107890 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2012.50

On Capturing Effects of Modifications as Data Dependencies

2012· article· en· W1979107890 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
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest suiteComputer scienceExtended finite-state machineSuiteRegression testingData miningRepresentation (politics)Set (abstract data type)Test caseFinite-state machineTheoretical computer scienceRegression analysisAlgorithmMachine learningSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dependence analysis on an Extended Finite State Machine (EFSM) representation of the requirements of a system under test has been used in requirements-based regression testing for regression test suite (RTS) reduction (reducing the size of a given test suite by eliminating redundancies), for RTS prioritization (ordering test cases in a given test suite for early fault detection) or for RTS selection (selecting a subset of a test suite covering the identified dependencies). These particular uses of dependence analysis are based on definitions of various types of control and data dependencies (between transitions in an EFSM) caused by a given set of modifications on the requirements. This abstract considers the definitions of data dependencies, gives examples of incompleteness of existing definitions, and presents insights on completing these definitions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.249 · 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