MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143462919 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345078

Automating the transition from stakeholders' requests to use cases in OOAD

2004· article· en· W2143462919 on OpenAlexaff
Kalaivani Subramaniam, Behrouz H. Far, Armin Eberlein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUse Case DiagramComputer scienceObject-oriented analysis and designParsingSoftware engineeringProcess (computing)AutomationTask (project management)Class diagramNatural languageSequence diagramUnified Modeling LanguageNatural language processingProgramming languageSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The object model creation process (OMCP) is considered a major task in object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD). In the rational unified process (RUP), objects and classes are identified from the use case model, which is a combination of the use case diagram and the use case specification (UCS) document. The automation of the generation of the class model assumes that the UCS is complete, accurate and unambiguous. However, in reality, the UCS is written in free form natural language and is therefore likely to be ambiguous and complex. To avoid this problem, the use of case templates and guidelines is proposed for writing UCS. The paper presents a methodology to automate the transition from stakeholders' requests to the use case model. The methodology uses a natural language parser to parse stakeholders' requests according to various guidelines. The automation process is discussed with an example.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207