MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011547577 · doi:10.1145/379377.375239

Cascaded refactoring for framework

2001· article· en· W3011547577 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode refactoringComputer scienceProgramming languageObject-oriented programmingCode (set theory)Software engineeringSet (abstract data type)MetamodelingSource codeProcess (computing)Software

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Refactoring of source code has been studied as a preliminary step in the evolution of object-oriented software. We extend the concept of refactoring to the whole range of models used to describe a framework in our methodology: feature model, use case model, architecture, design, and code. We view framework evolution as a two-step process: refactoring and extension. The refactoring step is a set of refactorings, one for each model, that cascades through them. The refactorings chosen for a model become the rationale or constraints for the choice of refactorings of the next model. The cascading of refactorings is aided by the alignment of the models. Alignment is a traceable mapping between models that preserves the commonality-variability aspects of the models.

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 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)0.384
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.252 · 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