MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230496176 · doi:10.1109/aspec.2007.54

Aligning the Map Requirements Modelling with the B-method for Formal Software Development

2007· article· en· W4230496176 on OpenAlex
Abdul Babar, Vladimir Tošić, John D. Potter

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringFormal specificationSoftware requirements specificationSoftware developmentRequirements analysisSoftware requirementsRequirements elicitationFormal methodsFormal verificationSystem requirements specificationRequirements managementSoftware constructionProgramming languageSystems engineeringSoftwareEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a software development approach that aligns a requirements elicitation technique with a formal method of software specification abstraction. The goal/strategy modeling technique Map augmented with Jackson's context diagrams (representing environment) is used to elicit requirements and the B-method is used to translate Map requirements into formal specifications. Comprehensive tool support allows the B-method to refine and implement the specification correctly. Our approach brings improvement to an approach that uses generic requirements for rigorous software development. The resulting specification model bridges the gap between software requirements and formal specifications and supports automatic refinement of strategic requirements into software code. To illustrate how our approach bridges this gap, we discuss the Point of Sale (PoS) requirements model of Seven Eleven Japan (SEJ).

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.250 · 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