Proceedings of the 4th international ACM Sigsoft symposium on Architecting critical systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the 4th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Architecting Critical Systems (ISARCS 2013). ISARCS is a symposium dedicated to architectural design for dependable, safe and secure systems. It provides an exclusive forum for exchanging views on the theory and practice of architecting critical systems. A critical system is characterized by the perceived severity of consequences that system failures may cause. In that respect, in addition to appropriate development methods, techniques and tools, a critical system also requires the provision of assurances that it is able to fulfill its specified service. As software systems continue to pervade every facet of our daily lives, our dependence on their safety, security, availability, and reliability grows. It has become increasingly clear that the architecture of a critical software system plays a crucial role in fulfilling its dependability requirements. This has called for effective methods, techniques, and tools that take architectural concerns into consideration during the design, construction, testing, maintenance, and upgrade of such systems. The aim of ISARCS is to bring together different communities in order to create a forum in which the different expertise collaborate in providing a comprehensive view on how to construct critical systems from the architectural perspective. This year, ISARCS is again part of the federated event CompArch, together with QoSA 2013: 9th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures, CBSE 2013: 16th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, and WCOP 2013: 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture. ISARCS call for papers attracted 12 submissions that were reviewed thoroughly by an international program committee. Following an online discussion phase, 5 long and 2 short papers were accepted for inclusion in the proceedings and presentation at the conference. The federated event also includes 3 keynotes that are highly relevant to the challenges of architecting critical systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.034 |
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".