Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Modelling in Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The MISE workshop aims at promoting the use of models in the engineering of software systems. In particular, we are interested in the exchange of innovative technical ideas and experiences related to modeling. Engineers have used models to effectively manage complexity for centuries, and there is a growing body of work on the use of models to manage inherent problem and solution complexity in software development. The use of software models will become more prevalent as methodologies and tools that manipulate models at various levels of abstraction become available. Workshop activities will focus on analyzing successful applications of software-modeling techniques to gain insights into challenging modeling problems, including: (1) identifying, describing, and using appropriate abstractions, (2) supporting incremental, iterative development through the use of appropriate model composition, transformation and other model manipulation operators, and (3) automated analysis of possibly large, possibly incomplete models to determine the presence or absence of desired and undesired properties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.011 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".