MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344018265 · doi:10.5220/0005760701230133

Automating Activities in MDE Tools

2016· article· en· W2344018265 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Andrés Gamboa, Eugene Syriani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamodelingComputer scienceWorkflowUsabilityModel-driven architectureSoftware engineeringDomain (mathematical analysis)Domain-specific languageModeling languageSoftwareUnified Modeling LanguageProgramming languageHuman–computer interactionDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) is a victim of its own success: being able to quickly generate software tools, many modeling tools exist today, but their usability is far from efficient. Complex processes and repetitive tasks are often required to perform a modeling activity, such as creating a domain-specific language or creating a domain-specific model. The goal of this paper is to increase the productivity of modelers in their every day activities by automating the tasks they perform in current MDE tools. We propose an MDE-based solution where the user defines a workflow that can be parametrized at run-time and executed. Our solution works for frameworks that support two level metamodeling as well as deep metamodeling. We implemented our solution in the MDE tool AtoMPM. We also performed a preliminary empirical evaluation of our approach and showed that we reduce both mechanical and cognitive efforts of the user.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207