An Empirical Investigation to Understand the Difficulties and Challenges of Software Modellers When Using Modelling Tools
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
Software modelling is a challenging and error-prone task. Existing Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) tools provide modellers with little aid, partly because tool providers have not investigated users' difficulties through empirical investigations such as field studies. This paper presents the results of a two-phase user study to identify the most prominent difficulties that users might face when developing UML Class and State-Machine diagrams using UML modelling tools. In the first phase, we identified the preliminary modelling challenges by analysing 30 Class and State-Machine models that were previously developed by students as a course assignment. The result of the first phase helped us design the second phase of our user study where we empirically investigated different aspects of using modelling tools: the tools' effectiveness, users' efficiency, users' satisfaction, the gap between users' expectation and experience, and users' cognitive difficulties. Our results suggest that users' greatest difficulties are in (1) remembering contextual information and (2) identifying and fixing errors and inconsistencies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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