MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065423914 · doi:10.5555/2050655.2050691

Diagram definition: a case study with the UML class diagram

2011· article· en· W2065423914 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
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass diagramComputer scienceProgramming languageMetamodelingSyntaxCommunication diagramUnified Modeling LanguageActivity diagramAbstract syntaxState diagramUML toolSystems Modeling LanguageSemantics (computer science)Artificial intelligenceFinite-state machineSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The abstract syntax of a graphical modeling language is typically defined with a metamodel while its concrete syntax (diagram) is informally defined with text and figures. Recently, the Object Management Group (OMG) released a beta specification, called Diagram Definition (DD), to formally define both the interchange syntax and the graphical syntax of diagrams. In this paper, we validate DD by using it to define a subset of the UML class diagram. Specifically, we define the interchange syntax with a MOF-based metamodel and the graphical syntax with a QVT mapping to a graphics metamodel. We then run an experiment where we interchange and render an example diagram. We highlight various design decisions and discuss challenges of using DD in practice. Finally, we conclude that DD is a sound approach for formally defining diagrams that is expected to facilitate the interchange and the consistent rendering of diagrams between tools.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.183 · 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