MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023385229 · doi:10.1142/s0218194010004931

FORMALIZATION OF TEXTUAL USE CASES BASED ON PETRI NETS

2010· article· en· W2023385229 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

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePetri netProgramming languageSemantics (computer science)SyntaxTupleSpecification languageProcess architectureFormal specificationFormal methodsArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A use case is a specification of interactions involving a system and external actors of that system. The intuitive, user centered nature of textual use cases is one of the reasons for the success of the use case approach. A certain level of formalization is however needed to automate use case based system development, including tasks such as design synthesis, verification and validation. In this paper, a mapping from textual use cases to a formal model (Petri nets) is proposed. Use cases are described in a restricted-form of natural language. The abstract syntax of the language is formally defined using a tuple structure. The mapping from use cases to Petri nets considers use cases sequencing constraints defined at the syntactic-level, and provides a definition of execution semantics to use cases.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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