Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on Aspect-oriented software development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to MODULARITY: aosd.13, the premiere international research conference on modularity in software and software-intensive systems. MODULARITY: aosd.13 is the 12th annual international conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD). This year's conference continues to broaden of the scope of the field to address all aspects of modularity, abstraction, and separation of concerns as they pertain to software, including new forms, uses, and analysis of modularity, along with the costs and benefits, and tradeoffs involved in their application. Modularity provides the international computer science research community and its many sub-disciplines (including software engineering, languages, and computer systems) with unique opportunities to come together to share and discuss perspectives, results, and visions with others interested in modularity as well as in the languages, development methods, architectures, algorithms, and other technologies organized around this fundamental concept. The MODULARITY: aosd.13 conference comprises two main technical tracks: Research Results and Modularity Visions. Both tracks invited full, scholarly papers of the highest quality on results and new ideas in areas that include but are not limited to complex systems, software design and engineering, programming languages, cyber-physical systems, and other areas across the whole system life cycle. Papers submitted to the Research Results track were reviewed in accordance with the highest established standards of scientific rigor applied in peer review of putative research results. Reviewers assessed works in terms of research problem formulations, novelty and sophistication of proposed solutions, clarity and significance of hypotheses, proper design and execution of experimental or analytical assessments, sound interpretation of data, and correct characterization of work in relation to existing knowledge. The Research Results program committee accepted papers in three rounds. In each round, each paper was accepted, rejected, or (except in the last round) invited for revision and a second review. Papers submitted to the Modularity Visions track were reviewed in accordance with the highest established standards of scientific rigor applied in peer review of scientific research proposals. Reviewers assessed works in terms of research problem formulations, novelty and sophistication of proposed solutions, clarity and significance of hypotheses, compelling preliminary results, proposals for sound future experimental or analytical assessments and interpretation of data, and correct characterization of work in relation to existing knowledge. The Modularity Visions program committee comprising ten international experts from different areas of software modularity selected one technical paper after a rigorous peer review of the five submissions to this track. Each paper was assigned at least three reviewers. The program committee discussed each paper in detail assessing their respective novel vision and contribution to advancing the state-of-the-art in modularity. Together, the Research Results (RR) and Modularity Visions (MV) tracks received 67 submissions (62 to the RR track; 5 to the MV track). Out of these submissions, 54 were distinct papers (13 papers were invited resubmissions from one round to the next, of which 11 were eventually accepted). In total, out of the 54 distinct submissions, 18 have been accepted (17 to the RR track; 1 to the MV track), which reflects an acceptance ratio of 33%. The MODULARITY: aosd.13 conference features three keynote speakers on modularity: Takahiro Fujimoto, Kyo Chul Kang, and Steven P. Reiss. Takahiro will talk about the spectrum of architectural modularity and integrality from the perspectives of manufacturing management; Kang will talk about modularity in the context of product line variability; and Steven will talk about modularity in modern applications and tools to support it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".