MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112717272 · doi:10.1109/32.935852

Foundations of the trace assertion method of module interface specification

2001· article· en· W2112717272 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionTRACE (psycholinguistics)Computer scienceProgramming languageNotationInterface (matter)Formal specificationOperating systemArithmeticMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trace assertion method is a formal state machine based method for specifying module interfaces. A module interface specification treats the module as a black-box, identifying all the module's access programs (i.e., programs that can be invoked from outside of the module) and describing their externally visible effects. In the method, both the module states and the behaviors observed are fully described by traces built from access program invocations and their visible effects. A formal model for the trace assertion method is proposed. The concept of step-traces is introduced and applied. The stepwise refinement of trace assertion specifications is considered. The role of nondeterminism, normal and exceptional behavior, value functions, and multiobject modules are discussed. The relationship with algebraic specifications is analyzed. A tabular notation for writing trace specifications to ensure readability is adapted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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