MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912392858

Proceedings of the 15th workshop on Early aspects

2009· article· en· W2912392858 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Garcia, Nan Niu, Ana Moreira, Jo�ão Araújo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Variety (cybernetics)Code refactoringComputer scienceTheme (computing)Process (computing)Engineering ethicsDozenSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebEngineeringSoftwareArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 15th Edition of the Early Aspects workshop. This year's workshop continues its tradition of being the premier forum for presentation of research results and tool demos on leading edge issues of identifying, representing, modularizing, and composing the crosscutting concerns in requirements engineering and architectural design. The theme of this year's workshop is learning from each other and from ourselves. The workshop gives researchers and practitioners a unique opportunity to share their perspectives with others interested in the various facets of early aspects. The call for papers attracted a dozen submissions from Asia, Europe, South America, and the United States. The program committee accepted 7 research papers that cover a variety of topics, including security concerns, business process modeling, architecture refactoring, model-driven development, and goal-oriented requirements analysis. In addition, the program includes a tool demo for identifying conflicting dependencies in requirements documents and a keynote speech by Mehmet Aksit from the University of Twente, The Netherlands. We hope that these proceedings will serve as a valuable reference for the early aspects researchers and practitioners.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207