A Notebook Format for the Holistic Design of Embedded Systems (Tool Paper)
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
This paper proposes the use of notebooks for the design documentation and tool interaction in the rigorous design of embedded systems. Conventionally, a notebook is a sequence of cells alternating between (textual) code and prose to form a document that is meant to be read from top to bottom, in the spirit of literate programming. We extend the use of notebooks to embedded systems specified by pCharts. The charts are visually edited in cells inline. Other cells can contain statements that generate code and analyze the charts qualitatively and quantitatively; in addition, notebook cells can contain other instructions to build the product from the generated code. This allows a notebook to be replayed to re-analyze the design and re-build the product, like a script, but also allows the notebook to be used for presentations, as for this paper, and for the inspection of the design. The interaction with the notebook is done through a web browser that connects to a local or remote server, thus allowing a computationally intensive analysis to run remotely if needed. The pState notebooks are implemented as an extension to Jupyter. The underlying software architecture is described and the issue of proper placement of transition labels in charts embedded in notebooks is discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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