Transcendental Logic-Based Formalism for Semantic Representation of Software Project Requirements Architecture
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
This article is devoted to the analysis of the situation that has arisen in the practice of using artificial intelligence methods for software development. Nowadays there are many disparate approaches, models, and practices based on the use of narrow intelligence for decision-making at different stages of the life cycle of software products, and an almost complete lack of solutions brought to wide practical use. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the main reasons for the lack of the expected effect from the implementation of Agile and suggests a way to solve this problem based on the use of a self-organizing knowledge model. Based on the heuristic usage of transcendental logic in the terms of "ontological predicates", such a model makes it possible to create a formalism of the semantic representation of the requirements architecture of a software project, which could provide semantic interoperability and an executable semantic framework for automated ontology generation from unstructured informal software requirements text. The main benefit of this model is that it is flexible and ensures the accumulation of knowledge without the need to change the initial infrastructure as well as that the ontology inference engine is the part of the mechanism of collective interaction of active elements of knowledge and not some externally programmed system of rules that imitate the process of thinking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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