MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980301902 · doi:10.4018/jssci.2010101907

The Formal Design Model of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM)

2010· article· en· W1980301902 on OpenAlexaff
Yingxu Wang, Yanan Zhang, Phillip C.‐Y. Sheu, Xuhui Li, Hong Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsComputer scienceFormal specificationProcess (computing)Formal methodsProgramming languageCode generationSoftware engineeringOperating systemKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Automated Teller Machine (ATM) is a safety-critical and real-time system that is highly complicated in design and implementation. This article presents the formal design, specification, and modeling of the ATM system using a denotational mathematics known as Real-Time Process Algebra (RTPA). The conceptual model of the ATM system is introduced as the initial requirements for the system. The architectural model of the ATM system is created using RTPA architectural modeling methodologies and refined by a set of Unified Data Models (UDMs), which share a generic mathematical model of tuples. The static behaviors of the ATM system are specified and refined by a set of Unified Process Models (UPMs) for the ATM transition processing and system supporting processes. The dynamic behaviors of the ATM system are specified and refined by process priority allocation, process deployment, and process dispatch models. Based on the formal design models of the ATM system, code can be automatically generated using the RTPA Code Generator (RTPA-CG), or be seamlessly transformed into programs by programmers. The formal models of ATM may not only serve as a formal design paradigm of real-time software systems, but also a test bench for the expressive power and modeling capability of exiting formal methods in software engineering.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational IntelligenceSame topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207