MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161885642 · doi:10.1109/wpc.2002.1021320

Where's the schema? A taxonomy of patterns for software exchange

2003· article· en· W2161885642 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 institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSchema (genetic algorithms)Schema migrationData exchangeSoftwareSoftware engineeringDatabase schemaStar schemaInformation retrievalProgramming languageDatabaseSemi-structured modelDatabase design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Program comprehension tools extract, organize and analyze information about the design and implementation of software systems. Before software tools can exchange information, they must share, at some level, the organization for the data exchanged, i.e. they must share a schema. In this paper we examine the various ways in which schemas are represented and used in tools. Schema use is classified according to how and where a schema is defined, leading to the identification of four patterns of exchange. We examine these exchange patterns and discuss how each has been used in existing software tool integration technologies. An evaluation of each exchange pattern against the requirements for a standard exchange format reveals the pattern of schema use that is most suitable for integrating the tools.

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 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 score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.209 · 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