MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148724073 · doi:10.1109/policy.2008.29

Model-Driven Engineering of a General Policy Modeling Language

2008· article· en· W2148724073 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Kaviani, Dragan Gaševic, Milan Milanović, Marek Hatala, Bardia Mohabbati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringModel-driven architectureModeling languageRealmMainstreamSoftware developmentProcess (computing)Software development processDesign languageManagement scienceSoftwareSystems engineeringProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite many efforts in developing policy languages which work in different logical domains and with various reasoning engines, there has been limited attention paid to bringing policy definition, design, and integration into the realm of the mainstream software development process. There seems to be a lack of appropriate software development tooling that can allow for easy representation and integration of policies withother pieces of software at the design time. This paper presents a General Policy Modeling Language (GPML), following the rationale of Model Driven Engineering (MDE), as a means to design policies and integrate them to the software development process. We describe the logical foundation and the modeling rationale behind GPML and show how it is adjustable to the existing policy languages.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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