MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041986180 · doi:10.1109/re.2014.6912277

Combined goal and feature model reasoning with the User Requirements Notation and jUCMNav

2014· article· en· W2041986180 on OpenAlexaff
Yanji Liu, Yukun Su, Xinshang Yin, Gunter Mussbacher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature modelFeature (linguistics)NotationPersonalizationInterface (matter)EclipseVariation (astronomy)Software engineeringUser interfaceStakeholderSoftwareHuman–computer interactionProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The User Requirements Notation (URN) is an international requirements engineering standard published by the International Telecommunication Union. URN supports goal-oriented and scenario-based modeling and analysis. jUCMNav is an open-source, Eclipse-based modeling tool for URN. This tool demonstration focuses on recent extensions to jUCMNav that have incorporated feature models into a URN-based modeling and reasoning framework. Feature modeling is a well-establishing technique for capturing commonalities and variabilities of Software Product Lines. Combined with URN, it is possible to reason about the impact of feature configurations on stakeholder goals and system qualities, thus helping to identify the most appropriate features for a stakeholder. Furthermore, coordinated feature and goal model reasoning is fundamental to Concern-Driven Development, where concerns are defined with a three-part variation, customization, and usage interface. As the variation interface is described with feature and goal models, it is now possible with jUCMNav to define and reason about a concern's variation interface, which is a prerequisite for composing multiple concerns based on their three-part interfaces.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207