MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120207700 · doi:10.1109/iceccs.2012.11

Bridging the Gap between User Requirements and Configuration Requirements

2012· article· en· W2120207700 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

VenueIrInSubria (University of Insubria) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Concordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Computer scienceUser requirements documentMiddleware (distributed applications)Software engineeringService (business)Requirements analysisSoftwareFunctional requirementDistributed computingOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Service Availability Forum supports the realization of Highly Available systems by means of standards like the Availability Management Framework (AMF), a middleware service that manages the high availability of services provided by applications through the coordination of their redundant components. AMF configurations for applications, capable of providing and protecting services, can be generated from the software and from a set of configuration requirements (CR). The specification of CR requires a good knowledge of the AMF specification. Users/Customers may not have this AMF knowledge and are usually acquainted to specifying high level characteristics of services of interest. This paper introduces an approach aiming at bridging the gap between user requirements and configuration requirements for the design of AMF configurations. © 2012 C.E.S.A.M.E.S.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.204 · 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