MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168552959 · doi:10.1109/qsic.2011.36

Improving the Modifiability of the Architecture of Business Applications

2011· article· en· W2168552959 on OpenAlexaff
Xulin Zhao, Foutse Khomh, Ying Zou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftware architectureBusiness process modelingBusiness requirementsBusiness processBusiness ruleProcess managementSoftwareEngineeringWork in processProgramming languageOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current rapidly changing business environment, organizations must keep on changing their business applications to maintain their competitive edges. Therefore, the modifiability of a business application is critical to the success of organizations. Software architecture plays an important role in ensuring a desired modifiability of business applications. However, few approaches exist to automatically assess and improve the modifiability of software architectures. Generally speaking, existing approaches rely on software architects to design software architecture based on their experience and knowledge. In this paper, we build on our prior work on automatic generation of software architectures from business processes and propose a collection of model transformation rules to automatically improve the modifiability of software architectures. We extend a set of existing product metrics to assess the modifiability impact of the proposed model transformation rules and guide the quality improvement process. Eventually, we can generate software architecture with desired modifiability from business processes. We conduct a case study to illustrate the effectiveness of our transformation rules.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207