Operationalizing the integration of user interaction specifications in the synthesis of modeling editors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long shortcoming in the automatic generation of domain-specific modeling (DSM) editors has been the lack of user experience, in particular, user interaction adapted to its user. The current practice relies solely on the abstract and concrete syntax of the language, restricting the user interaction with the editor to a set of generic interactions built-in the tool. To increase the user experience with DSM editors, we propose to specify the different viewpoints of interactions (e.g., I/O devices, component of the interface, behavior of the editor) each modeled at the right level of abstraction for its user expert. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, by anchoring the operational semantics of all these viewpoints in a Statecharts model that controls the DSM editor. We report on the complex transformation that takes as input different viewpoints are expressed in at distinct levels of abstraction, to produce a custom interaction with the DSM editor based on a RETE algorithm. Our implementation shows that we can produce correct and responsive results by emulating existing DSM editors.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it