MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036762551 · doi:10.5555/2662737.2662754

Model oriented programming: bridging the code-model divide

2013· article· en· W2036762551 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
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageBridging (networking)Model-driven architectureUnified Modeling LanguageProgramming paradigmCode (set theory)Software engineeringCode generationSet (abstract data type)Software

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model Driven Engineering proposes the use of models as the main development artifacts. This methodology involves generating code from models and then perhaps adding some details to the generated code. Frequently, it is required to also reverse-engineer code to generate models. Despite the wide acceptance of modeling benefits, the use of Model Driven Engineering practices remains limited. We present model oriented programming as a new paradigm to reduce the ever-present tension between model-centric and code-centric development styles. The core of this approach is to add UML abstractions such as associations and state machines directly into a high-level programming language code. In this approach, model diagrams become just another abstract view of the code. The need for reverse engineering is eliminated, since everything in the diagram is represented directly in the code. Model orientation is illustrated using Umple, a working model oriented programming platform. A functional layer of an airline reservation system is presented as a case study.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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