MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084598998 · doi:10.1145/2379776.2379778

Dependability modeling and analysis of software systems specified with UML

2012· review· en· W2084598998 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsDependabilityMaintainabilityComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageSoftware engineeringSoftware qualityApplications of UMLReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringSoftware developmentSoftwareProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal is to survey dependability modeling and analysis of software and systems specified with UML, with focus on reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety (RAMS). From the literature published in the last decade, 33 approaches presented in 43 papers were identified. They are evaluated according to three sets of criteria regarding UML modeling issues, addressed dependability characteristics, and quality assessment of the surveyed approaches. The survey shows that more works are devoted to reliability and safety, fewer to availability and maintainability, and none to integrity. Many methods support early life-cycle phases (from requirements to design). More research is needed for tool development to automate the derivation of analysis models and to give feedback to designers.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.226 · 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