MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986995668 · doi:10.1002/spe.1068

A business process‐driven approach for generating software modules

2011· article· en· W1986995668 on OpenAlexaff
Xulin Zhao, Ying Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness requirementsComputer scienceBusiness process modelingBusiness softwareModular designArtifact-centric business process modelSoftware engineeringBusiness ruleBusiness domainBusiness processModularity (biology)Software developmentBusiness Process Model and NotationSoftwareProcess managementProgramming languageEngineeringOperations managementWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Business processes describe the business operations of an organization and capture the business requirements. Business applications provide automated support for an organization to achieve their business objectives. A software modular structure represents the structure of a business application and shows the distribution of functionality to software components. However, mainstream design approaches rely on software architects' craftsmanship to derive software modular structures from business requirements. Such a manual approach is inefficient and often leads to inconsistency between business requirements and business applications. To address this problem, we propose an approach to derive software modular structures from business processes. We use clustering algorithms to analyze dependencies among data and tasks captured in business processes and group the strongly dependent tasks and data into a software component. A case study is conducted to generate software modular structures from a collection of business processes from the industrial setting and open‐source development domain. The experiment results illustrate that our proposed approach can generate meaningful software modular structures with high modularity. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Practice and ExperienceSame topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207