Les patrons de conception: Représentation et mise en oeuvre
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design patterns are models of solutions to specific design problems in precise contexts. Since their apparition, they have raised a lot of interest. Some studies have concentrated on the classification, comparison and implementation of patterns, others have tried to specify formally patterns and/or their application. In this report we review several works that have studied the representation of patterns and the automation of their application while integrating them in development tools or environments. Resume Les patrons de conception sont des modeles de solution a des problemes specifiques de conception dans des contextes precis. Depuis leur apparition, ils ont suscite beaucoup d’interet. Certaines etudes se sont concentrees sur la classification, la comparaison et la mise en œuvre des patrons, d’autres ont essaye de specifier formellement les patrons et/ou leur application. Dans ce rapport nous passons en revue plusieurs travaux qui se sont interesses a la representation des patrons et a l’automatisation de leur application en les integrant dans des outils ou environnements de developpement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it