MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163599520 · doi:10.1145/1281421.1281443

Architectural knowledge and rationale

2007· article· en· W2163599520 on OpenAlexaff
Paris Avgeriou, Philippe Kruchten, Patricia Lago, Paul Grisham, Dewayne E. Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseArchitectureComputer scienceSoftware engineeringArchitectural designEngineeringKnowledge managementEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK) and Architecture rationale and Design intent (ADI) was held jointly with ICSE 2007 in Minneapolis. This report presents the themes of the workshop, summarizes the results of the discussions held, and suggests some topics for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207