MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400343256

On the Requirements and Design Decisions of an In-House Component-Based SPL Automated Environment.

2014· article· en· W2400343256 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePUCRS Repository (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Product (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Software engineeringProduct designSystems engineeringSoftwareProcess managementEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software product line adoption has many challenges in industrial settings. A particular challenge regards the use of offthe-shelf tools to support this process, since these tools usually do not fully address some company’s specific needs. To elicit concrete requirements and provide tool vendors and implementers with direct feedback, we avail from our experience in developing a software product line to derive testing tools for a laboratory of a global IT company (currently set as a pilot study). In this paper, we present such requirements and argue that existing tools fail to address all of them. In addition, we present our design decisions in creating an in-house solution meeting the specific needs of the partner company. We also highlight that these decisions help in building a body of knowledge that can be reused in different settings sharing similar requirements.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.197 · 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