MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979829546 · doi:10.4018/jdm.2008010101

Dimensions of UML Diagram Use

2008· article· en· W1979829546 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian Dobing, Jeffrey Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Database Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnified Modeling LanguageApplications of UMLUML toolComputer scienceClass diagramUse Case DiagramCommunication diagramSoftware engineeringSystems Modeling LanguageSoftwareProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UML is an industry standard for object-oriented software engineering. However, there is little empirical evidence on how UML is used. This article reports results of a survey of UML practitioners. We found differences in several dimensions of UML diagram usage on software development projects including; frequency, the purposes for which they were used, and the roles of clients/users in their creation and approval. System developers are often ignoring the “use case-driven” prescription that permeates much of the UML literature, making limited or no use of either use case diagrams or textual use case descriptions. Implications and areas requiring further investigation are discussed.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations88
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Database ManagementSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207