MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106551902 · doi:10.1109/cmpsac.1997.625028

A method for structural compatibility in software reuse using requirements specification

2002· article· en· W2106551902 on OpenAlex
K. Periyasamy, J. Chidambaram

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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReuseCompatibility (geochemistry)Software constructionSoftware engineeringComponent-based software engineeringSoftware requirements specificationSoftware developmentFormal specificationFormal methodsNotationProgramming languageSoftwareEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.160 · 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