Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Science and Engineering (CSE) software supports a wide variety of domains including nuclear physics, crash simulation, satellite data processing, fluid dynamics, climate modeling, bioinformatics, and vehicle development. The increase in the importance of CSE software motivates the need to identify and understand appropriate software engineering (SE) practices for CSE. Because of the uniqueness of CSE software development, existing SE tools and techniques developed for the business/IT community are often not efficient or effective. Appropriate SE solutions must account for the salient characteristics of the CSE development environment. This situation creates an opportunity for members of the SE community to interact with members of the CSE community to address this need. This workshop facilitates that collaboration by bringing together members of the SE community and the CSE community to share perspectives and present findings from research and practice relevant to CSE software. A significant portion of the workshop is devoted to focused interaction among the participants with the goal of generating a research agenda to improve tools, techniques, and experimental methods for studying CSE software engineering. The goal of this workshop is to facilitate interaction among researchers from SE and CSE, who do not normally interact, to discuss issues relevant to the intersection of these two fields. By bringing these groups together, our goal is to support the building of a common research agenda to deal with the complex software development issues present in the CSE domain. The 2011 paper topics include: Case studies of CSE software development processes, Lessons learned from the development of CSE applications, SE metrics and tool support for CSE applications, Empirical studies of environments, tools, languages, and processes used in CSE application development, and V&V techniques specifically targeted for the CSE domain. The specific software engineering topics covered by the papers include: design patterns, object-oriented design, agile methods, product lines, requirements, and reengineering software.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.015 |
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".