MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007400794 · doi:10.1145/1463788.1463798

Flexible verification of user-defined semantic constraints in modelling tools

2008· article· en· W2007400794 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceEclipseConstraint (computer-aided design)Software engineeringProgramming languageObject Constraint LanguageModeling languageSemantics (computer science)Unified Modeling LanguageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many modelling tools embed verification rules that are checked against user-defined models to ensure they satisfy the static semantic constraints of the modelling language. However, there are many other contexts where required constraints vary with the intended purpose of the model, and not just the modelling language used. In this paper, we propose a flexible and practical approach for users to define, select, store, group, exchange, enable, and verify custom semantic constraints on metamodels with the Object Constraint Language. We illustrate the benefits of this approach with extensions to an Eclipse-based modelling tool, called jUCMNav, and applications to various contexts such as style compliance, analysis, and transformations that involve chains of tools. We believe this approach to be easily adaptable to other Eclipse-based modelling tools, which could then enjoy similar benefits.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.188 · 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