MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795224459 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2821111

Controlling Meta-Model Extensibility in Model-Driven Engineering

2018· article· en· W2795224459 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsComputer scienceMetamodelingProgramming languageModel-driven architectureAbstract syntaxSoftware engineeringSemantics (computer science)EclipseSystems Modeling LanguageSyntaxMetaprogrammingModeling languageExtensibilityUnified Modeling LanguageAbstract syntax treeSoftwareArtificial intelligenceParsing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-driven engineering (MDE) considers the systematic use of models in software development. A model must be specified through a well-defined modeling language with precise syntax and semantics. In MDE, this syntax is defined by a meta-model. While meta-models tend to be fixed, there are several scenarios that require the customization of existing meta-models. For example, standards of the object management group (OMG) like the knowledge discovery meta-model (KDM) or the diagram definition (DD) are based on the extension of base meta-models according to certain rules. However, these rules are not “operational”but are described in natural language and therefore not supported by tools. Although modeling is an activity regulated by meta-models, currently there are no commonly accepted mechanisms to regulate how meta-models can be extended. Hence, in order to solve this problem, we propose a mechanism that allows specifying customization and extension rules for meta-models, as well as a tool that makes it possible to customize the meta-models according to such rules. The tool is based on the Eclipse modeling framework, has been implemented as an Eclipse plugin, and has been validated to guide the extension of OMG standard meta-models, such as KDM and DD.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.241 · 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