Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Sharing and reusing architectural knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 3rd Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge - SHARK 2008. This year's workshop continues its tradition of being the premier forum for intensive discussion and presentation of research results and experience reports on cutting-edge issues of the emerging field of Architectural Knowledge (AK). Over the past three years we have experienced an impressive increase in the number of research papers in scientific conferences and journals, dealing with architecture knowledge. There is also growing awareness between practitioners in the industry of the complicated issues and challenges that AK management (or lack thereof) entails. The mission of SHARK is to advance the state of the art and practice in the field of AK in both theory and practice. SHARK gives researchers and practitioners a unique opportunity to share their perspectives with others interested in the various aspects of this inter-disciplinary and multi-faceted field. The call for papers this year attracted 21 submissions from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Australia, the United States and Canada. The program committee accepted 13 papers that cover a variety of topics both directly related to AK, and also to other fields like requirements, patterns, evolution, Service-Oriented Architectures, Global Software Development, Embedded Systems and Software Product Lines. The resulting program reflects the truly multi-dimensional nature of this field. In addition, the program includes three invited talks that provide extra insight on three important aspects: Axel van Lamsweerde will discuss the Requirements Engineering perspective on AK; Jon Hal will argue that Requirements and Architecture are eventually two sides of the same coin; and Rich Hilliard will provide his insight on Architecture Documentation metamodels with respect to the international standard IEEE 1471 (revised into ISO/IEC 42010). We hope that these proceedings will serve as a valuable reference for AK researchers and practitioners.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".