Proceedings of the 2008 AOSD workshop on Early aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crosscutting concerns at the requirements and architecture level are referred to as early aspects. Analyzing early aspects is important in order to reason about the impact of crosscutting concerns on each other and later software development activities. Identifying and modularizing aspects in models developed during early phases of the software lifecycle is important because it supports the identification and analysis of aspects during design and coding phases. The series of Early Aspects Workshops has been running since AOSD 2002. The theme of the workshop at the 7th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD.08) was early aspects and software product lines. The AOSD and software product line communities have become increasingly aware that techniques from one of these fields may be usefully applied to problems in the other field. The workshop aimed at helping the communities of software product lines, requirements engineering, software architecture design, and aspect-oriented software development to exchange ideas, identify existing problems, and discuss potential solutions that integrate AOSD and software product line techniques. The workshop was one of a series of similarly themed Early Aspects Workshops at major conferences in 2008. Other Early Aspects Workshops on early aspects and software product lines were planned for ICSE in Leipzig, Germany, in May and for SPLC in Limerick, Ireland, in September.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".