Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behaviour is a complex and costly task. Consequently, practitioners have adopted techniques that support incremental elaboration of partial behaviour descriptions. A noteworthy example is the wide adoption of scenario-based notations such as message sequence charts. Scenario-based specifications are partial descriptions that can be incrementally elaborated to cover the system behaviour that is of interest. However, how should partial behavioural models described by different stakeholders with different viewpoints covering different aspects of behaviour be composed? How should partial models of component instances of the same type be put together. In this paper, we propose model merging as a general solution to these questions. We formally define model merging based on observational refinement and show that merging consistent models is a process that should result in a minimal common refinement. Because minimal common refinements are not guaranteed to be unique, we argue that the modeller should participate in the process of elaborating such a model. We also discuss the role of the least common refinement and the greatest lower bound of all minimal common refinements in this elaboration process. In addition, we provide algorithms for i) checking consistency between two models; ii) constructing their least common refinement if one exists; iii) supporting the construction of a minimal common refinement if there is no least common refinement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".