MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

5.5.1 A SysML‐based Approach for the Specification of Complex Systems

2012· article· en· W2048586964 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

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystems Modeling LanguageSystem requirements specificationComputer scienceRequirements analysisProcess (computing)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringComplex systemUnified Modeling LanguageProgramming languageEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes a SysML‐based approach for the definition of the different layers of requirements necessary for a full functional specification of complex systems and/or systems‐of‐systems. The approach is specifically suited to those cases in which the development of the system as a whole and that of the single system elements (or of subsets of system elements), are under the responsibility of different development teams, within the same firm or belonging to different firms. The process is based on a recursive approach, in which each layer of the development must: i) interact with its “customer”, through the acquisition and analysis of the stakeholder requirements applied to the system, ii) define the system‐level requirements as a result of a black‐box analysis of the system's behavior, and iii) perform a white‐box analysis for the definition of the system elements' requirements.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.202 · 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