MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Fingerprinting design patterns

2005· article· en· 150 citations· W2136224168 on OpenAlex· 10.1109/wcre.2004.21

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
none
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
Genre
Candidate signal: MethodsConsensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score
0.866
Threshold uncertainty score
0.461
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread
0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

Design patterns describe good solutions to common and recurring problems in program design. The solutions are design motifs which software engineers imitate and introduce in the architecture of their program. It is important to identify the design motifs used in a program architecture to understand solved design problems and to make informed changes to the program. The identification of micro-architectures similar to design motifs is difficult because of the large search space, i.e., the many possible combinations of classes. We propose an experimental study of classes playing roles in design motifs using metrics and a machine learning algorithm to fingerprint design motifs roles. Fingerprints are sets of metric values characterising classes playing a given role. We devise fingerprints experimentally using a repository of micro-architectures similar to design motifs. We show that fingerprints help in reducing the search space of micro-architectures similar to design motifs efficiently using the Composite design motif and the JHotDraw framework.

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.

The record

Venue
Topic
Software Engineering Research
Field
Computer Science
Canadian institutions
Université de Montréal
Funders
not available
Keywords
Computer scienceArchitectureMotif (music)SoftwareSoftware design patternIdentification (biology)Theoretical computer scienceMetric (unit)Artificial intelligenceData miningSoftware engineeringMachine learningProgramming languageEngineering
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes