MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126720785 · doi:10.1109/real.1997.641286

Guidelines for automated implementation of executable object oriented models for real-time embedded control systems

2002· article· en· W2126720785 on OpenAlexaff
M. Saksena, P. Freedman, P. Rodziewicz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExecutableComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingReal-time computingReal-time operating systemEmbedded systemOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present our experiences in applying real time scheduling theory to embedded control systems designed using ROOM (Real time Object Oriented Modeling) methodology. ROOM has originated from the telecommunications community and has been successfully applied to many commercial systems through the supporting case tool ObjecTime. It is particularly suitable for modeling reactive real time behavior. Furthermore, it provides many other advantages through the use of object orientation, and the use of executable models from which code may be generated quickly and efficiently. Since many real time embedded control systems have significant reactive, event driven behavior, it is attractive to use ROOM methodology to develop such systems. However, the ROOM methodology does not provide tools to specify and analyze the temporal behavior as is required for the hard real time components of embedded systems, and for which the real time scheduling theory provides an analytical basis. We show how real time scheduling theory may be applied to ROOM models using a cruise control example to illustrate. The biggest challenge comes from minimizing the adverse effects of priority inversions. Our results are very encouraging, and we show that not only is it possible to apply real time scheduling theory, but that it can be done very efficiently provided certain guidelines are followed in the design and implementation of the ROOM model.

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)0.026
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 score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207