MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231732242 · doi:10.1109/mise.2017.10

Specifying Evolving Requirements Models with TimedURN

2017· article· en· W4231732242 on OpenAlexafffund
Aprajita, Sahil Luthra, Gunter Mussbacher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsComputer scienceMetamodelingNotationSnapshot (computer storage)Consistency (knowledge bases)Software engineeringProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The User Requirements Notation (URN) supports the elicitation, specification, and analysis of integrated goal and scenario models. The analysis of the goal and scenario models focuses on one snapshot in time and does not allow the model to change over time. While several models may be created that represent different stages of a system, managing several, slightly different model copies is a space-consuming, time-consuming, and error-prone task that makes it difficult to maintain consistency across the model copies. This paper introduces TimedURN, an extension of the URN standard, which enables the modeling and analysis of a comprehensive set of changes to a goal and scenario model over time. The changes to the model are captured in one base model, which eases system evolution. The metamodel for TimedURN is presented and it is argued that it can also be applied to other modeling languages. Furthermore, the usefulness of TimedURN is illustrated with an example from the sustainability domain and the comprehensiveness of the supported types of changes is assessed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207