Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and practice in the application of software architecture has reaffirmed the need to consider software systems from several distinct points of view. Previous work by P. Kruchten (1995) and C. Hofmeister et al. (2000) suggests that four or five points of view may be sufficient: the logical view (i.e., the domain object model), the (static) code view, the process/concurrency view, the deployment/execution view, plus scenarios and use-cases. We have found that some classes of software systems exhibit interesting and complex build-time properties that are not explicitly addressed by previous models. In this paper, we present the idea of build-time architectural views. We explain what they are, how to represent them, and how they fit into traditional models of software architecture. We present three case studies of software systems with interesting build-time architectural views, and show how modelling their build-time architectures can improve developer understanding of what the system is and how it is created. Finally, we introduce a new architectural style, the "code robot" that is often present in systems with interesting build-time views.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".