MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999323314 · doi:10.1109/wse.2006.13

Model Driven Evolution of Network-Centric Applications: Perspectives, Challenges, and Issues

2006· article· en· W1999323314 on OpenAlex
Kostas Kontogiannis

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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftware evolutionSoftware developmentModel-driven architectureSoftwareConsistency (knowledge bases)Software systemCode generationSoftware constructionData scienceSystems engineeringProgramming languageKey (lock)Artificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-driven techniques have been proposed and promoted by the Software Engineering community over the past few years as a mechanism for streamlining the design, implementation and evolution of large software applications. The basic idea behind model-driven techniques is that, design artifacts of large software applications can be represented as a collection of models which can be consequently transformed and evolved to generate specific design artifacts and even source code that complies with specific programmatic paradigms and patterns. Even though model-driven frameworks have caught the attention of the software engineering community as a way to increase programmers' productivity and overall system robustness through the disciplined manipulation and transformation of models and ultimately code generation, they have remained so far only in the form of "guidelines" or "standard practices". In this respect, important questions regarding to what types of models are required for system representation, how transformations are encoded and enacted, how model constraints are denoted and validated, and how source code is generated, is left to software vendors, software architects and software developers to further design and implement. In this keynote presentation we will focus on the challenges, issues, emerging research topics and practical examples pertaining to the use of model-driven techniques for the design, analysis and evolution of network-centric, web-based applications. Some of these challenges in such systems include the use of multi-language paradigms, the problem of maintaining consistency between various models during system evolution, dealing with underlying technology changes, and facilitating end-product customizability.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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