Modelling the Structure of Reusable Solutions for Architecture-Based Quality Evaluation
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
When designing cloud applications many decisions must be made like the selection of the right set of software components. Often, there are several third-party implementations on the market from which software architects have the choice between several solutions that are functionally very similar. Even though they are comparable in functionality, the solutions differ in their quality attributes, and in their software architecture. This diversity hinders automated decision support in model-driven engineering approaches, since current state-of-the-art approaches for automated quality estimation often rely on similar architectures to compare several solutions. In this paper, we address this problem by contributing with a metamodel that unifies the architecture of several functional similar solutions, and describes the different solutions' architectural degrees of freedom. Such a model can be used later to extend the process of reuse from reusing libraries to reusing the corresponding models of these libraries with the lasting benefit of automated decision support at design-time that supports decisions when deploying applications into the cloud. Finally, we apply our approach on two intrusion detection systems.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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