MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

6.6.1 Using MBSE with SysML Parametrics to Perform Requirements Analysis

2011· article· en· W2071408934 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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystems Modeling LanguageComputer scienceSystem requirements specificationSystems engineeringParametric statisticsProcess (computing)Unified Modeling LanguageDomain (mathematical analysis)Software engineeringRequirements analysisFunctional requirementReliability engineeringProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Requirements are attributed as a common cause of failure in system development. Not only are text requirements ambiguous, the domain conditions under which they are to be satisfied are vague. Until operating conditions and requirements are formally captured, they will continue to be vague with ill‐defined verification criteria. SysML used in a Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) development process can enable mitigation of this primary source of error. By representing the system under design and its operating environment as a composite SysML model with parametric diagrams, requirements can be formalized in a precise manner. Formalization of requirements and constraints with parametric diagrams enables them to be verified and flowed down during the development process. An example will be used to illustrate how parametric diagrams can be used to develop requirements and constraints.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.177 · 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