MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108754848 · doi:10.1142/s0218194006002938

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE PRAGMATIC QUALITY OF Z SPECIFICATIONS

2006· article· en· W2108754848 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

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceCompromiseSoftware qualitySoftware engineeringSpecification languageRisk analysis (engineering)Formal specificationSoftware quality controlSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware developmentBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Z is a formal specification language for describing sequential software systems. As the use of Z increases, the quality of Z specifications as effective means of communication arises. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a systematic assessment of the quality of Z specifications as perceived by their stakeholders. A pragmatic quality framework for Z specifications using notions from semiotics, cognitive psychology, and information system quality is proposed. The goals for pragmatic quality, and manageable criteria and mechanisms to address them in a feasible manner are identified. The utility and trade-offs of the mechanisms in achieving the quality goals of the framework are analyzed. Examples that lead to compromise of pragmatic quality in a Z specification, and techniques for improvement, are given.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · 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