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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key challenge facing IT organizations today is their evolution towards adopting e-business practices that gives rise to the need for reengineering their underlying systems. Any reengineering effort has to be aware of the functional requirements of the subject system, in order not to violate the integrity of its intended uses. However, as systems get regularly maintained throughout their lifecycle, the documentation of their requirements often become obsolete or get lost. To address this problem of software requirements loss, we have developed an interaction-pattern mining method for the recovery of functional requirements as usage scenarios. Our method analyzes traces of the run-time system-user interaction to discover frequently recurring patterns; these patterns correspond to the functionality currently exercised by the system users, represented as usage scenarios. The discovered scenarios provide the basis for reengineering the system into web-accessible components, each one supporting one of the discovered scenarios. In this paper, we describe IPM2, our interaction-pattern discovery algorithm, we illustrate it with a case study from a real application and we give an overview of the reengineering process in the context of which it is employed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
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 it