MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079082011 · doi:10.1109/iri.2012.6303056

Automated ontology construction from scenario based software requirements using clustering techniques

2012· article· en· W2079082011 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Moshirpour, Seyedehmehrnaz Mireslami, Reda Alhajj, Behrouz H. Far

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringIDEF5OntologySoftware requirements specificationSoftware requirementsRequirements elicitationRequirements analysisScope (computer science)Software systemRequirements engineeringBridge (graph theory)Data miningSoftwareSoftware constructionDomain knowledgeProcess ontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontologies have been utilized in many different areas of software engineering. As software systems grow in size and complexity, the need to devise methodologies to manage the amount of information and knowledge becomes more apparent. Utilizing ontologies in requirement elicitation and analysis is very practical as they help to establish the scope of the system and facilitate information reuse. Moreover ontologies can serve as a natural bridge to transition from the requirements gathering stage to designing the architecture for the system. However manual construction of ontologies is time consuming, error prone and subjective. Therefore it is greatly beneficial to devise automated methodologies which allow knowledge extraction from system requirements using an automated and systematic approach. This paper introduces an approach to systematically extract knowledge from system requirements to construct different views of ontologies for the system as a part of a comprehensive framework to analyze and validate software requirements and design.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207