MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165944130 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2007.47

Adaptive Systems Require Adaptive Support--When Tools Attack!

2007· article· en· W2165944130 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Baldwin, Yvonne Coady

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 institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityComputer scienceKey (lock)Software engineeringSoftwareAdaptation (eye)Software systemComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a world where intelligence can be arguably measured by an animal's ability to use tools, are we marking ourselves for natural selection? Software development tools are steadily becoming easier to use, but these same tools are becoming so "helpful" that they can actually do more harm than good. Tools are supposed to help evolve and adapt systems - ironically however, they are often too rigid to be able to evolve and adapt themselves. This study considers three key approaches that can be simultaneously employed within adaptive system infrastructure: patch files, preprocessor directives, and aspects. Their synergies and interoperability characteristics are outlined, and the design of what we believe to be necessary for integrated tool support is established based on evidence gathered from OS and VM infrastructure software. Interoperable system infrastructure support (ISIS) is proposed as a tool that can better evolve and adapt according to a system's needs

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.182 · 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