MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150322553 · doi:10.1109/re.2006.27

Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering, Part II

2006· article· en· W2150322553 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchComputer scienceSoftware engineeringRequirements analysisStakeholderSchema (genetic algorithms)Requirements engineeringConceptual schemaSoftware developmentSoftwareSystems engineeringEngineering managementEngineeringProgramming languageSociologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last fifteen years have seen the rise of a new phase in software development which is concerned with the acquisition, modelling and analysis of stakeholder purposes ("goals") in order to derive functional and nonfunctional requirements. The history of ideas and research results for this new phase was reviewed in a RE'04 keynote presentation by Axel van Lamsweerde. We revisit the topic and sketch on-going research on a number of fronts. Specifically, we discuss an agent-oriented software development methodology -- called Tropos -- that is founded on the concepts of goal, actor as well as inter-actor dependencies. We also show how goal models that characterize a space of possible solutions for meeting stakeholder goals can be used as a basis for designing high variability software. In addition, we report on early work to extend database design techniques to support the generation of a database conceptual schema from stakeholder goals. The research reported is the result of collaborations with colleagues at the Universities of Toronto and Trento.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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