MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

6.2.1 A fresh view on model‐based systems engineering: The processing system paradigm

2001· article· en· W2077348519 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystem of systemsNotationProcess (computing)Systems designSystem of systems engineeringSystems engineeringSoftware engineeringResource (disambiguation)Quality (philosophy)Software systemParadigm shiftSoftwareEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Model‐based systems engineering and graphical notations have an enormous potential for increasing design productivity, system quality and lifetime by shifting the bulk of design efforts to early phases. In spite of that this is hardly questioned, the shift towards model‐based approaches has not come to a break through, as we are experiencing in software engineering. It is believed that a major reason is lack of a common system view that can act as a framework for developing modelling languages and methods for a broad community of system engineers. This paper suggests such a framework. It identifies the systems of concern as a processing system that consist of a process control system and a resource system , and applies two related views on processing systems: A functional view and a solution view. The framework has been successfully tested on telecommunication systems and networks for some years. It is believed that it holds for many other system domains as well.

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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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