MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132123383 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345041

Incorporating a contract-based test facility to the GUI framework

2004· article· en· W2132123383 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphical user interfaceGraphical user interface testingReuseSoftware engineeringTestabilitySource codeObject-oriented programmingSoftwareCode coverageCode reuseTest caseUser interfaceProgramming languageReliability engineeringEngineeringUser interface design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The graphical user interface (GUI) is one of the key components in interactive software systems. In most cases, developing such a system requires significant cost and effort. To reduce the cost and improve the software quality, many GUI frameworks have been proposed. However, these GUI frameworks lack built-in test facilities. To address these issues, the paper proposes a novel approach to incorporating a contract-based test facility in the GUI framework by adding the test facility to the underlying OO (object-oriented) framework. Unlike traditional source code modification techniques, this approach adopts the architectural structure to implement the contracts, promotes the reuse of the test facility itself and can be applied to the commercial off-the-shelf GUI framework, where the source codes are not available, to increase its testability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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