The Formal Design Models of a Set of Abstract Data Types (ADTs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type theories are fundamental for underpinning data object modeling and system architectural design in computing and software engineering. Abstract Data Types (ADTs) are a set of highly generic and rigorously modeled data structures in type theory. ADTs also play a key role in Object-Oriented (OO) technologies for software system design and implementation. This paper presents a formal modeling methodology for ADTs using the Real-Time Process Algebra (RTPA), which allows both architectural and behavioral models of ADTs and complex data objects. Formal architectures, static behaviors, and dynamic behaviors of a set of ADTs are comparatively studied. The architectural models of the ADTs are created using RTPA architectural modeling methodologies known as the Unified Data Models (UDMs). The static behaviors of the ADTs are specified and refined by a set of Unified Process Models (UPMs) of RTPA. The dynamic behaviors of the ADTs are modeled by process dispatching technologies of RTPA. This work has been applied in a number of real-time and non-real-time system designs such as a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS+), a Cognitive Learning Engine (CLE), and the automatic code generator based on RTPA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".