MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133170989 · doi:10.1145/3428076

Facet-oriented Modelling

2021· article· en· W3133170989 on OpenAlexaff
Juan de Lara, Esther Guerra, Jörg Kienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
KeywordsMetamodelingComputer scienceModel transformationReuseSoftware engineeringModel-driven architectureProgramming languageModeling languageSoftware product lineUnified Modeling LanguageSoftwareSoftware developmentArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models are the central assets in model-driven engineering (MDE), as they are actively used in all phases of software development. Models are built using metamodel-based languages, and so objects in models are typed by a metamodel class. This typing is static, established at creation time, and cannot be changed later. Therefore, objects in MDE are closed and fixed with respect to the class they conform to, the fields they have, and the well-formedness constraints they must comply with. This hampers many MDE activities, like the reuse of model-related artefacts such as transformations, the opportunistic or dynamic combination of metamodels, or the dynamic reconfiguration of models. To alleviate this rigidity, we propose making model objects open so that they can acquire or drop so-called facets . These contribute with a type, fields and constraints to the objects holding them. Facets are defined by regular metamodels, hence being a lightweight extension of standard metamodelling. Facet metamodels may declare usage interfaces , as well as laws that govern the assignment of facets to objects (or classes). This article describes our proposal, reporting on a theory, analysis techniques, and an implementation. The benefits of the approach are validated on the basis of five case studies dealing with annotation models, transformation reuse, multi-view modelling, multi-level modelling, and language product lines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207