A Research Agenda for Systems of Systems Architecting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper documents the activity of a workshop on defining a research agenda for Systems of Systems (SoS) Architecting, which was held at USC in October 2006. After two days of invited talks on critical success factors for SoS engineering, the authors of this paper convened for one day to brainstorm topics for the purpose of shaping the near‐term research agenda of the newly convened USC Center for Systems & Software Engineering. The output from the workshop is a list of ten high‐impact items with corresponding research challenges in the context of SoS Architecting. Each item includes a description of the research challenges, its link to contemporary academic or industrial problems, and reasons for advocacy of that area. The items were assessed in terms of value and difficulty to determine a prioritization both for the CSSE's future research agenda and for others in the field.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".