MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767368277 · doi:10.1109/models.2017.25

Heuristic-Based Recommendation for Metamodel — OCL Coevolution

2017· article· en· W2767368277 on OpenAlexaff
Edouard Batot, Wael Kessentini, Houari Sahraoui, Michalis Famelis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamodelingCoevolutionComputer scienceHeuristicSpace (punctuation)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel approach for solving the problem of coevolution between metamodels and OCL constraints. Unlike existing solutions, our approach does not rely on predefined update rules and explicit tracking of high level changes to the metamodel. Rather, we pose it as a multi-objective optimization problem, exploring the space of possible OCL modifications to identify solutions that (a) do not violate the structure of the new version of the metamodel, (b) minimize changes to existing constraints, and (c) minimize loss of information. Finally, we recommend an appropriate subset of solutions to the user. We evaluate our approach on three cases of metamodel and OCL coevolution. The results show that we recommend accurate solutions for updating OCL constraints, even for complex evolution changes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207