MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013205291 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2013.132

Software Architecture Decomposition Using Clustering Techniques

2013· article· en· W2013205291 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisDecompositionData miningSoftwareBrown clusteringHierarchical clusteringSoftware systemSoftware architectureSoftware engineeringFuzzy clusteringArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageCanopy clustering algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While applying clustering techniques to software system decomposition, the software designer faces two practical issues: (1) determination of the number of clusters that will be mapped to software modules and (2) determination of a specific cluster or software module for some highly coupled components. This paper presents an approach for software architecture decomposition with an emphasis on finding solutions to those two issues. The approach uses fuzzy c-means clustering together with three hierarchical agglomerative clustering methods and the adaptive K-nearest neighbor algorithm. We applied the approach to real industrial software systems. The results show that our approach provides objective and insightful information to the software designer in dealing with those two issues.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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