MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121998002 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1999.807219

An integrative approach to requirements modeling

2003· article· en· W2121998002 on OpenAlexaff
Jernej Polajnar, Desanka Polajnar, K. Pruden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExecutableGoal modelingVisual modelingSoftware engineeringRedundancy (engineering)Unified Modeling LanguageSeparation of concernsConceptual modelSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionRequirements analysisProgramming languageSoftwareEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An approach to requirements modeling based on synergy between multiple views is presented. It integrates natural-language descriptions, visual executable model with run-time behavior monitoring and code-generation facilities, and interactive graphical user interface prototypes, through the use of dynamic scenarios. A conceptual design of an integrative requirements modeling system (currently implemented as research prototype) is described. Partial modeling techniques are used to preclude excessive redundancy and permit flexible balancing of emphasis between views. The general objective is to allow industrial teams to flexibly combine the advantages of informal and formal methods, to smoothly shift balance between them with incremental investment in tools and training, and to preserve continuity between old and new projects.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207