MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113471799 · doi:10.1109/sepcase.2007.5

Evaluating User-centric Adaptation with Goal Models

2007· article· en· W2113471799 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Goal modelingKey (lock)Ubiquitous computingContext (archaeology)Goal orientationAdaptive systemWork (physics)User modelingHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceSoftwareArtificial intelligenceComputer securityRequirements engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capturing and adapting to the operational context of mobile users is one of the key properties of pervasive systems. Although some frameworks have been proposed for managing user-centric adaptation in pervasive computing, little work has been done on adaptivity evaluation. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating adaptive pervasive systems based on the viewpoint comparison between the potential users and the system design. In this framework, two types of goal models "system goal models" and "user goal models" are developed for the viewpoint comparison, two metrics "coverage" and "demand" are used for measuring the difference, and some principles are applied for identifying key features from the comparison. This paper also reports the result of a case study we conducted for evaluating the effectiveness of this framework.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.225 · 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