MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017574083 · doi:10.1504/ijspm.2008.023684

Developing a software process simulation model using SPEM and analytical models

2008· article· en· W2017574083 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInformation Technology Research Centre
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceSoftwareSystems engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To develop Software Process Simulation Models (SPSMs) more effectively, we need to consider the following issues: reducing the knowledge difference between increasing the reusability of a simulation model, decreasing the complexity of a simulation model, and mitigating the lack of historical data. We propose an approach to develop an SPSM based on SPEM, and widely adopted analytical models. An SPEM-based process model is integrated with the quantitative information and transformed into a DEVS-Hybrid SPSM. Our approach resolves the issues by the transformation algorithms, the hierarchical and modularised modelling properties of SPEM and DEVS, and widely adopted analytical models.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.197 · 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