MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141048470 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2002.1167814

Migration to object oriented platforms: a state transformation approach

2003· article· en· W2141048470 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zou, Kostas Kontogiannis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLegacy systemBusiness process reengineeringSoftware engineeringModel transformationSequence diagramWorkbenchContext (archaeology)Programming languageObject-oriented programmingLegacy codeProcess (computing)Software qualitySystems engineeringSoftware developmentUnified Modeling LanguageSoftwareEngineeringData miningArtificial intelligenceVisualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has become evident that the benefits of object orientation warrant the design and development of reengineering methods that aim to migrate legacy procedural systems to modern object oriented platforms. However, most research efforts in this direction focus mostly on the extraction of an object model from the legacy procedural code without taking into account quality requirements for the target migrant system. This paper presents a reengineering workbench that allows for quality requirements of the target system to be modeled as soft-goals and software transformations to be applied selectively towards achieving specific quality requirements for the target system. In this context, the migration process is denoted by a sequence of transformations that alter the state of the system being reengineered. A Markov model approach and the Viterbi algorithm are used to identify the optimal sequence of transformations that can be applied at any given state of the migration process. For the evaluation of the proposed workbench, a migration experiment of gnu AVL tree libraries is presented.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207