MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911331837

Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge

2010· article· en· W2911331837 on OpenAlexaff
Paris Avgeriou, Patricia Lago, Philippe Kruchten

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentational state transferComputer scienceArchitectural patternSoftware engineeringSoftware architectureArchitectureKnowledge managementContext (archaeology)Knowledge sharingBody of knowledgeSoftware developmentSoftwareWorld Wide WebSoftware designWeb service
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SHARK workshop focuses on current and emerging methods, languages, notations, technologies and tools to create, extract, represent, share, use and re-use architectural knowledge. Architectural Knowledge (AK) is the integrated representation of the software architecture of a software-intensive system (or a family of systems), including the architectural design decisions, and the external context/environment. It is increasingly recognized as the means for architecture governance; it facilitates and supports collaboration and the transfer of expertise. Architectural knowledge has been established within the software architecture community as a self-contained research area in software architecture, and brought along some promising research directions. In this workshop we discuss the issues that lead to the application of architectural knowledge in research and industrial practice; ongoing research and new ideas to advance the field. In its four previous editions we examined: the state of the art and practice (2006), future challenges and trends (2007), architectural knowledge as perceived by different research communities, including requirements engineering, service-oriented computing and international standardization (2008), and the application, experimentation, specialization and use of architectural knowledge theory and approaches (2009). In this fifth SHARK edition we've asked the community to discuss and contribute on how to reorganize and codify the Body of Knowledge of the WICSA community (WICSA BOK). This is partially available through www.softwarearchitectureportal.org and www.wicsa.net, but it needs to be reorganized and unified. We see two broad objectives for this activity: (1) to codify the BOK in the way the potential users (i.e., the members of the architecture community) would like to see it; and (2) exploit Web 2.0 and social networking techniques to support AK sharing, and better reachability/usability (again) according to the actual needs of the community itself. SHARK contributions offer new ideas and R&D results to shape the next generation of the WICSA BOK (www.softwarearchitectureportal.org).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207