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 OpenAlexaff
Stéphane S. Somé

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207