A component‐based development process for trustworthy systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper introduces a new process for a rigorous component‐centered development of trustworthy systems. The rationale for our perspective of the process is two‐fold. The activities prescribed in a conventional software engineering development process are neither suitable nor sufficient for developing component‐based systems. Component‐based development methods that are currently practised do not support the explicit specification of trustworthiness properties, and are not based on rigorous principles. Hence they are not suitable for developing trustworthy systems. Trustworthiness is regarded as a composite nonfunctional property comprising the four attributes safety, security, availability, and reliability. They must be rigorously defined for components and systems composed from them. It is essential that the process enforces a direct evidence of trustworthiness in the systems that are developed following the process. Consequently, the development process, in addition to being reuse‐oriented, component‐oriented, and rigorous in all phases of the system lifecycle, should maintain the chain of evidence that the trustworthiness properties are preserved in every activity of every phase of system development. The proposed process includes several parallel interrelated tracks including component development, component assessment, component reuse, and component‐based system development and prescribes specific activities and tools for ensuring trustworthiness in all activities. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it