MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912023238 · doi:10.1145/2737166

Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering

2015· paratext· en· W2912023238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clemens Szyperski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Presentation (obstetrics)GlobeLibrary scienceTheme (computing)Component-based software engineeringComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)Variety (cybernetics)Software systemSoftwareWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 18th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering -- CBSE'15. This year's symposium continues its tradition of being the premier forum for presentation of research results and experience reports in component technology. The general theme for CBSE'15 is "Components for physical services", motivated by the fact that software systems increasingly control processes that reside outside traditional computing environments. The call for papers attracted 42 submissions from around the globe: America (Brazil, Canada, Jamaica, USA), Asia (India, Pakistan), Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom), and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), highlighting the international appeal of the event. The papers in these proceedings are included based on a formal peer-reviewing process on full papers. Each submission was reviewed by at least three independent members of the Program Committee. After an extensive discussion, the Program Committee decided to accept 14 papers (9 regular papers and 5 short papers). It is very pleasing to see that the accepted papers cover a variety of topics, including Component Composition and Reuse, Adaptable Components, Components for Wireless and Realtime systems, Component Analysis and Design, and Components in Model-based Engineering. To a certain degree, this reflects on the progress component technologies have made over the past years. We hope that the CBSE'15 proceedings will serve as a reference for academic researchers and practitioners working in the area of Component-Based Software Engineering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.031

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207