MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895553469 · doi:10.1145/3270112.3270115

Documenting Simulink designs of embedded systems

2018· article· en· W2895553469 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftwareSoftware designGenerator (circuit theory)Systems engineeringSoftware documentationSignature (topology)Software systemSoftware developmentEmbedded systemSoftware constructionProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of appropriate software design documentation has been well-established. Yet in industrial practice design documentation of large software systems is often out of date or entirely lacking in large part due to the effort required to produce and maintain useful design documents. While model-based design (mbd) partially addresses this problem, large complex models still require additional design documentation to enable development and maintenance. This paper introduces tool support for documenting the Software Design Description (sdd) of embedded systems developed using mbd with Simulink. In particular, the paper proposes a template for a sdd of a Simulink model. Then, the tool support we have developed for semi-automatic generation of sdds from the template is introduced. The tool support integrates MathWorks' Simulink Report Generator and our previously developed Signature Tool that identifies the interfaces of Simulink subsystems.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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