MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196831515 · doi:10.1145/3461001.3473054

REVE 2021

2021· article· en· W3196831515 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley K. G. Assunção, Roberto E. Lopez-Herrejon, Tewfik Ziadi, Jabier Martinez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware product lineComputer scienceSoftware engineeringDomain engineeringScope (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)ReuseDomain analysisSemantics (computer science)Legacy systemReverse engineeringProduct (mathematics)SoftwareData scienceSoftware developmentProgramming languageComponent-based software engineeringSoftware constructionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software Product Line (SPL) migration remains a challenging endeavour. From organizational issues to purely technical challenges, there is a wide range of barriers that complicates SPL adoption. This workshop aims to foster research about making the most of the two main inputs for SPL migration: 1) domain knowledge and 2) legacy assets. Domain knowledge, usually implicit and spread across an organization, is key to define the SPL scope and to validate the variability model and its semantics. At the technical level, domain expertise is also needed to create or extract the reusable software components. Legacy assets can be, for instance, similar product variants (e.g., requirements, models, source code, etc.) that were implemented using ad-hoc reuse techniques such as clone-and-own. More generally, the workshop REverse Variability Engineering attracts researchers and practitioners contributing to processes, techniques, tools, or empirical studies related to the automatic, semi-automatic or manual extraction or refinement of SPL assets.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.283
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207