MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122185633 · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568267

Lifting model transformations to product lines

2014· article· en· W2122185633 on OpenAlexafffund
Rick Salay, Michalis Famelis, Julia Rubin, Alessio Di Sandro, Marsha Chećhik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCode refactoringSoftware product lineComputer scienceModel transformationSoftware engineeringSoftwareProduct (mathematics)Source lines of codeSet (abstract data type)Software developmentModel-driven architectureFeature modelProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software product lines and model transformations are two techniques used in industry for managing the development of highly complex software. Product line approaches simplify the handling of software variants while model transformations automate software manipulations such as refactoring, optimization, code generation, etc. While these techniques are well understood independently, combining them to get the benefit of both poses a challenge because most model transformations apply to individual models while model-level product lines represent sets of models. In this paper, we address this challenge by providing an approach for automatically ``lifting'' model transformations so that they can be applied to product lines. We illustrate our approach using a case study and evaluate it through a set of experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207