MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151296289 · doi:10.1109/wicsa.2008.25

Wishes and Boundaries for a Software Architecture Knowledge Community

2008· article· en· W2151296289 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitKnowledge managementReuseWorld Wide WebProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Software architectureArchitectureSoftwarePortfolioSemantic WebSoftware engineeringBusinessEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software architecting is a highly knowledge-intensive process demanding and producing a large and rich amount of information. To remain competitive, companies and organizations working in the IT sector must be able to manage this knowledge portfolio and effectively exploit and reuse it. In the era of Web 2.0, knowledge grids, social networking, global development and semantic Web, this working session addresses the problem of building a knowledge community in the field of software architecture. To this end, we aim at exploring the wishes of academics and industrial organizations, on the one hand, and their boundaries on he other. Our goal is to compare and contrast the inputs from academia and industry, and gain a shared understanding about what can be done now, and in the near future.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.228 · 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