MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038457881 · doi:10.1109/vissof.2007.4290693

Requirements of Software Visualization Tools: A Literature Survey

2007· article· en· W2038457881 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
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationSoftware engineeringSoftware visualizationUsabilityRequirements analysisInteroperabilitySoftware developmentSoftwareSoftware constructionWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionProgramming languageData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective is to identify requirements (i.e., quality attributes and functional requirements) for software visualization tools. We especially focus on requirements for research tools that target the domains of visualization for software maintenance, reengineering, and reverse engineering. The requirements are identified with a comprehensive literature survey based on relevant publications in journals, conference proceedings, and theses. The literature survey has identified seven quality attributes (i.e., rendering scalability, information scalability, interoperability, customizability, interactivity, usability, and adoptability) and seven functional requirements (i.e., views, abstraction, search, filters, code proximity, automatic layouts, and undo/history). The identified requirements are useful for researchers in the software visualization field to build and evaluate tools, and to reason about the domain of software visualization.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207