MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996180635 · doi:10.1145/1498926.1498927

Deferring design pattern decisions and automating structural pattern changes using a design-pattern-based programming system

2009· article· en· W1996180635 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware design patternSpecification patternDesign patternGenerative DesignCoding (social sciences)Engineering design processStructural patternArchitectureContext (archaeology)Software designSoftware engineeringProgramming languageSoftware developmentSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the design phase of software development, the designer must make many fundamental design decisions concerning the architecture of the system. Incorrect decisions are relatively easy and inexpensive to fix if caught during the design process, but the difficulty and cost rise significantly if problems are not found until after coding begins. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to find incorrect design decisions during the design phase. To reduce the cost of expensive corrections, it would be useful to have the ability to defer some design decisions as long as possible, even into the coding stage. Failing that, tool support for automating design changes would give more freedom to revisit and change these decisions when needed. This article shows how a design-pattern-based programming system based on generative design patterns can support the deferral of design decisions where possible, and automate changes where necessary. A generative design pattern is a parameterized pattern form that is capable of generating code for different versions of the underlying design pattern. We demonstrate these ideas in the context of a parallel application written with the CO 2 P 3 S pattern-based parallel programming system. We show that CO 2 P 3 S can defer the choice of execution architecture (shared-memory or distributed-memory), and can automate several changes to the application structure that would normally be daunting to tackle late in the development cycle. Although we have done this work with a pattern-based parallel programming system, it can be generalized to other domains.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.256 · 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