MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155775985 · doi:10.1109/ecbs.2008.49

Scenario-Based Program Slicing

2008· article· en· W2155775985 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
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDebuggingProgram slicingSlicingSoftware engineeringProgramming languageMicrosoft Visual StudioAgile software developmentXMLSet (abstract data type)SoftwareOperating systemWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile software development methodologies are driven by user created stories known as scenarios. These scenarios capture a subset of the program's functionality and often permit developers to perform an ad hoc form of program slicing. We developed a tool, and integrated it into Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, to formalise the slicing of a program based on a specified scenario. During development, programmers are required to insert, using a predefined macro, an XML tag set before all methods and class variables that they add, edit, or reference. Our slicing tool uses these tags to identify the methods and variables associated with a specific scenario and to create a compilable program slice that implements only the scenario. Scenario- based slices can be used by both developers and managers in support of tasks that include, but are not limited to, debugging, metric generation (e.g., complexity), cost estimation, prioritization, and requirements tracing.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.236 · 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