MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097559693 · doi:10.1109/wpc.2004.1311067

Resolving linkage anomalies in extracted software system models

2004· article· en· W2097559693 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceLinkage (software)AbstractionDependency (UML)Software systemData miningSoftwareSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Resolution (logic)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Program model linking has been largely overlooked and not constrained properly in the extraction of software system models. This often results in inaccurate system models at different levels of abstraction even if programs can be extracted correctly. This paper describes two constrained approaches toward accurate linkage resolution. The first approach is purely based on a set of linking heuristics. The second approach leverages the software build process and also utilizes linking heuristics. We compare these two approaches and discuss their benefits and limitations. The empirical results from a case study of the PostgreSQL database system are also presented. Our study shows that inappropriate linkage resolution leads to a relatively large number of dependency anomalies at higher levels of abstraction. These anomalies can be effectively removed using our proposed approaches.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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