MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046116380 · doi:10.1145/1509847.1509851

Employing aspect composition in adaptive software systems

2009· article· en· W2046116380 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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAspect-oriented programmingComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Set (abstract data type)Software engineeringSoftwareSoftware systemExtensibilitySoftware product lineSeparation of concernsSystems engineeringDistributed computingSoftware developmentEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive software is a closed-loop system which aims at adjusting itself at runtime in different situations. Such a system needs a set of sensors to monitor attributes of itself and its operating environment. Furthermore, it requires a set of effectors in order to make changes in its entities. These changes are essential for fulfilling system's non-functional and functional requirements. Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) is a promising way to develop these sensors and effectors through static and dynamic composition of advices. This paper presents the experience of employing aspect composition in engineering a sample adaptive software. The main objectives are exploring the difficulties of utilizing this approach, and investigating the effectiveness of aspect-based adaptation actions. A J2EE bookstore application, TPC-W, was selected as the case study, to instrument sensors by the aid of static aspects, and effectors using dynamic aspects. The findings are promising, and encourage us to continue this line of research for more complex systems.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.242 · 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