MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128138035 · doi:10.1109/wpc.2002.1021340

Fused data-centric visualizations for software evolution environments

2003· article· en· W2128138035 on OpenAlexafffund
Jens H. Jahnke, Hausi Müller, Andrew Walenstein, Nikolai Mansurov, K. Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationAbstractionSoftware visualizationHierarchySuiteSoftware evolutionSoftwareSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionData visualizationSoftware systemSoftware architectureData scienceComponent-based software engineeringSoftware constructionData miningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During software evolution, several different facets of the system need to be related to one another at multiple levels of abstraction. Current software evolution tools have limited capabilities for effectively visualizing and evolving multiple system facets in an integrated manner. Many tools provide methods for tracking and relating different levels of abstraction within a single facet. However, it is less well understood how to represent and understand relationships between and among different abstraction hierarchies, i.e. for inter-hierarchy relations. Often, these are represented and explored independently, making them difficult to relate to one another. As a result, engineers are likely to have difficulty understanding how the various facets of a system relate and interact. We describe preliminary results of a collaborative research project between industry and academia to enhance the inter-hierarchy visualization capabilities of an existing software evolution environment called "KLOCwork Suite". Specifically, we describe our efforts to add a "fused" visualization based on story board diagrams. This visualization integrates - or "fuses" - facets of architecture, behavior and data. We describe how these diagrams bridge currently isolated visualizations of system information, and argue how they can help drive architecture excavation tasks.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207