MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151339426 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1997.627116

Object oriented top-down software design process

2002· article· en· W2151339426 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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoftware Engineering and Design Patterns
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceObject-oriented designSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware development processSoftware designProcess (computing)Object-oriented programmingSoftwareSoftware constructionGoal-Driven Software Development ProcessNotationSystems engineeringProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in software engineering theory often does not change the situation of software designers who in most cases are faced with the problem of defining their own methodology for software development. There are a few attempts to introduce formal methods for software development. One of those attempts and probably the most successful one is the object oriented approach which provides designers with well defined framework to perform system analysis and design. The main aim of the paper is not to introduce the object oriented concept and any of the notations currently being used but to propose a practical design flow which would be of help in organizing the object oriented design process. An instance of design process is presented. An example system has been analyzed with the help of OMT method and implemented in C++.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering and Design PatternsFrench-language works237,207