MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991038278 · doi:10.1147/sj.453.0607

UML 2: A model-driven development tool

2006· article· en· W1991038278 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

VenueIBM Systems Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnified Modeling LanguageObject Constraint LanguageApplications of UMLComputer scienceUML toolSoftware engineeringIBMUpgradeSystems Modeling LanguageModeling languageProgramming languageKey (lock)Model-driven architectureModel driven developmentSoftwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Unified Modeling Language® (UML®) industry standard has recently undergone a major upgrade, resulting in a revision called UML 2. The primary motivation for this revision was to make UML better suited to model-driven development™ (MDD™), an approach to software development in which software models play a vital role. This requires a modeling language that is not only highly expressive but also capable of specifying models that are precise and unambiguous. In this overview article, we describe the key developments in UML 2 and the rationale behind them, and we explain how they help meet the needs of MDD. These new capabilities can be grouped into two distinct categories: (1) internal and architectural changes required to support MDD and (2) new modeling features. This paper is a revised version of a Web article, “Unified Modeling Language Version 2.0,” which was published on March 21, 2005, by developerWorks®, IBM Corporation.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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