MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138876988 · doi:10.1145/1082983.1083075

Towards requirements-driven autonomic systems design

2005· article· en· W2138876988 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

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomic computingComputer scienceSoftware engineeringProcess (computing)Systems engineeringSoftware systemRisk analysis (engineering)SoftwareDistributed computingReliability engineeringEngineeringCloud computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomic computing systems reduce software maintenance costs and management complexity by taking on the responsibility for their configuration, optimization, healing, and protection. These tasks are accomplished by switching at runtime to a different system behaviour - the one that is more efficient, more secure, more stable, etc. - while still fulfilling the main purpose of the system. Thus, identifying and analyzing alternative ways of how the main objectives of the system can be achieved and designing a system that supports all of these alternative behaviours is a promising way to develop autonomic systems. This paper proposes the use of requirements goal models as a foundation for such software development process and sketches a possible architecture for autonomic systems that can be built using the this approach.

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)0.105
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.221 · 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