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 OpenAlexaff
Ryszard Janicki, Emil Sekerinski

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207