Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost every kind of software development periodically needs to merge models. Perhaps they come from different stakeholders during the requirements analysis phase, or perhaps they are modifications of the same model done independently by several groups of people. Sometimes these models are consistent and can be merged. Sometimes they are not, and negotiation between the stakeholders is needed in order to resolve inconsistencies. While various methods support merging, we need formal approaches that help stakeholders negotiate. We present a formal framework for merging and conflict resolution. It facilitates automatic merging of consistent models, enables users to visualize and explore potential disagreements and identify their priorities, and suggests ways to resolve the priority items.
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 | 0.028 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.013 |
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".