MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512560510 · doi:10.18293/seke2016-183

The Software Architecture Mapping Framework for Managing Architectural Knowledge

2016· article· en· W2512560510 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Adam, Alain Abran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware architecture descriptionArchitectureSoftware architectureSoftware engineeringReference architectureArchitecture tradeoff analysis methodResource-oriented architectureArchitectural patternMultilayered architectureSoftwareArchitecture frameworkView modelComputer architectureSoftware developmentComponent-based software engineeringSoftware constructionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within a software architecture design (SAD) project, designers deal with software design artifacts (SDAs) such as scenarios, patterns, and tactics.Each SDA has its unique issues and related architectural knowledge (AK) that may threaten the success of a project.This paper introduces the Software Architecture Mapping (SAM) framework to manage AK and associated issues by using finer-grained SDAs and networks of weighted arguments.These networks of data may be used to produce quantitative information in multi-dimensional views to facilitate the identification of critical SDAs and issues in a project.This paper illustrates how the SAM framework has been used to manage AK related to the template method (TM) design pattern in the context of an academic case study.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207