MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098969028 · doi:10.5555/857171.857210

The Dangerous 'All' in Specifications

2000· article· en· W2098969028 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Berry, Erik Kamsties

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Workshop on Software Specification and Design · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCONQUESTSoftwareSoftware engineeringNatural language processingProgramming languageHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rupp and Gotz (see CONQUEST-1, 1st Conf. Quality Engineering in Software Technology, Nurnberg, Germany, 1997) observe that some, but not all, requirement specification sentences involving universal quantification, are dangerous because they are usually not true. Jackson and Zave (see Proc. Int. Symp. Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, p.56-64, 1993) provide a classification of requirement specification sentences into indicative and optative sentences. It is observed that the dangerous sentences involving universal quantifiers are all indicative.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Workshop on Software Specification and DesignSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207