MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150139634 · doi:10.1177/0037549704050532

Computer Automated Multi-Paradigm Modeling: An Introduction

2004· article· en· W2150139634 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRotation formalisms in three dimensionsGraph rewritingAbstractionField (mathematics)Representation (politics)GraphModel transformationDomain (mathematical analysis)Modeling languageTheoretical computer scienceSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling and simulation are quickly becoming the primary enablers for complex system design. They allow the representation of intricate knowledge at various levels of abstraction and allow automated analysis as well as synthesis. The heterogeneity of the design process, as much as of the system itself, however, requires a manifold of formalisms tailored to the specific task at hand. Efficient design approaches aim to combine different models of a system under study and maximally use the knowledge captured in them. Computer Automated Multi-Paradigm Modeling (CAMPaM) is the emerging field that addresses the issues involved and formulates a domain-independent framework along three dimensions: (1) multiple levels of abstraction, (2) multiformalism modeling, and (3) meta-modeling. This article presents an overview of the CAMPaM field and shows how transformations assume a central place. These transformation are, in turn, explicitly modeled themselves by graph grammars.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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