MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144951547 · doi:10.1109/csmr.2006.26

Evaluating architectural stability using a metric-based approach

2006· article· en· W2144951547 on OpenAlexaff
S.A. Tonu, Azin Ashkan, Ladan Tahvildari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Computer scienceArchitectural patternSoftware architectureArchitectureArchitecture tradeoff analysis methodStability (learning theory)Set (abstract data type)Software engineeringSoftwareSoftware metricSoftware evolutionSoftware systemReference architectureSource codeCode (set theory)Software architecture descriptionProgramming languageSoftware constructionMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural stability refers to the extent software architecture is flexible to endure evolutionary changes while leaving the architecture intact. Approaches to evaluate software architectures for stability can be retrospective or predictive. Retrospective evaluation looks at successive releases of a software system to analyze how smoothly the evolution has taken place. Predictive evaluation examines a set of likely changes and shows the architecture can endure these changes. This paper proposes a metric-based approach to evaluate architectural stability of a software system by combining these two traditional analysis techniques. Such an approach performs on the fact bases extracted from the source code by reverse engineering techniques. We also present experimental results by applying the proposed approach to analyze the architectural stability across different versions of two spreadsheet systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207