MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983705529 · doi:10.1109/wpc.2005.26

On Evaluating the Layout of UML Class Diagrams for Program Comprehension

2005· article· en· W1983705529 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 Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass diagramStory-driven modelingComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageCommunication diagramUML toolApplications of UMLClass (philosophy)ReadabilityProgram comprehensionProgramming languageFlowchartActivity diagramSoftware engineeringPerspective (graphical)SoftwareSoftware systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UML class diagrams are helpful for understanding the structure of a software system. Algorithms and tools have been developed to generate UML class diagrams automatically for program understanding purposes. However, many tools often ignore perceptual factors in the layout of these diagrams. Therefore, users still have to spend much time and effort rearranging boxes and lines to make the diagram understandable. This paper presents key criteria and guidelines for the effective layout of UML class diagrams from the perspective of perceptual theories. Two UML tools have been analyzed and evaluated to illustrate how the criteria can be applied to improve the readability of class diagrams.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207