Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a controlled experiment for the empirical evaluation of Example-Driven Modeling (EDM), an approach that systematically uses examples for model comprehension and domain knowledge transfer. We conducted the experiment with 26 graduate and undergraduate students from electrical and computer engineering (ECE), computer science (CS), and software engineering (SE) programs at the University of Waterloo. The experiment involves a domain model, with UML class diagrams representing the domain abstractions and UML object diagrams representing examples of using these abstractions. The goal is to provide empirical evidence of the effects of suitable examples in model comprehension, compared to having model abstractions only, by having the participants perform model comprehension tasks. Our results show that EDM is superior to having model abstractions only, with an improvement of 39% for diagram completeness, 30% for questions completeness, 71% for efficiency, and a reduction of 80% for the number of mistakes. We provide qualitative results showing that participants receiving model abstractions augmented with examples experienced lower perceived difficulty in performing the comprehension tasks, higher perceived confidence in their tasks' solutions, and asked fewer clarifying domain questions, a reduction of 90%. We also present participants' feedback regarding the usefulness of the provided examples, their number and types, as well as, the use of partial examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".