MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147031613 · doi:10.1109/rsp.2010.5656338

Umple: Towards combining model driven with prototype driven system development

2010· article· en· W2147031613 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Forward, Omar Badreddin, Timothy C. Lethbridge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReuseWeavingSoftware engineeringRapid prototypingFocus (optics)Process (computing)Interface (matter)Software prototypingClass (philosophy)Point (geometry)SoftwareHuman–computer interactionSoftware developmentSystems engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of model driven methodologies is bringing new challenges for software prototyping. Models tend to focus on the design of the system, and are less concerned with, or less able to, support prototype qualities like reuse, evolution, or weaving together independently designed parts. This paper presents a model-oriented prototyping tool called Umple that supports model driven engineering and overcomes some of the challenges related to prototyping in a modeling environment. Umple allows end users to quickly model class and state machine models and to incrementally embed implementation artifacts. At any point in the modeling process, users can quickly generate a fully functional prototype that exposes modeling implications on the user interface, and allows stakeholders to quickly get a feel of how the full system will behave.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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