MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183279454 · doi:10.1109/modre.2015.7343876

Evaluation of reusable concern-oriented goal models

2015· article· en· W2183279454 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa Berk Duran, Aldo Navea Pina, Gunter Mussbacher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseComputer scienceGoal orientationSoftware engineeringSeparation of concernsGoal modelingContext (archaeology)PersonalizationHuman–computer interactionRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringSoftwareRequirements engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new unit of encapsulation called the concern is at the center of Concern-Orientation. Building on techniques for advanced Separation of Concerns, from Model-Driven Engineering, and from Software Product Lines, Concern-Orientation is a reuse paradigm that stipulates the use of three interfaces to enable broad, generic reuse: the variation, customization, and usage interfaces. Higher-level concerns reuse lower-level concerns, resulting in concern hierarchies where lower-level concern models are composed with higher-level concern models. As part of the variation interface, goal models are used to describe the impact of features of a concern on system qualities. Consequently, goal models of lower-level concerns must be combined with goal models of higher-level concerns to enable reasoning about system qualities in concern hierarchies. However, existing propagation-based reasoning mechanisms for goal models still assume a monolithic goal model, which is not appropriate for concern-oriented reuse. To address this issue, this paper presents novel modeling constructs to enable the reuse of lower-level goal models in the context of Concern-Orientation, extends existing propagation-based reasoning mechanisms of goal models for use in concern hierarchies, and reports on a proof-of-concept implementation of the novel modeling constructs and the extended reasoning mechanism.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207