MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081971240 · doi:10.1142/s0218194014400154

Addressing Non-Functional Properties in Feature Models: A Goal-Oriented Approach

2014· article· en· W2081971240 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Noorian, Mohsen Asadi, Ebrahim Bagheri, Weichang Du

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature modelSoftware product lineComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Feature-oriented domain analysisDomain engineeringDomain (mathematical analysis)Domain modelSoftware engineeringSoftwareProcess (computing)Data miningDomain analysisSoftware developmentArtificial intelligenceDomain knowledgeSoftware constructionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software Product Line (SPL) engineering is a systematic reuse-based software development approach which is founded on the idea of building software products using a set of core assets rather than developing individual software systems from scratch. Feature models are among the widely used artefacts for SPL development that mostly capture functional and operational variability of a system. Researchers have argued that connecting intentional variability models such as goal models with feature variability models in a target domain can enrich feature models with valuable quality and non-functional information. Interrelating goal models and feature models has already been proposed in the literature for capturing non-functional properties in software product lines; however, this manual integration process is cumbersome and tedious. In this paper, we propose a (semi) automated approach that systematically integrates feature models and goal models through standard ontologies. Our proposed approach connects feature model and goal model elements through measuring the semantic similarity of their annotated ontological concepts. Our work not only provides the means to systematically interrelate feature models and goal models but also allows domain engineers to identify and model the role and significance of non-functional properties in the domain represented by the feature model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207