A method for structural compatibility in software reuse using requirements specification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software reuse can be attempted at any stage in the life cycle of a software. However, reuse will be more effective at a higher level of abstraction mainly because one can easily understand the functionalities of a reusable component when it is abstractly specified, and can also justify that the component is indeed reusable. A software product can be reused if and only if its structure and behavior are compatible with those of the software that has to be developed. The authors present a method to ensure structural compatibility in software reuse, using formal requirements specification. They also describe algorithms to implement the method, and illustrate the method through a case study. The formal notation Z is used in the paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".