Recovering business processes from business applications
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
Abstract A business process, such as the process followed when ordering a book, describes the order of executing tasks (e.g., check inventory, verify credit card, and ship book). Business applications implement the business processes for the daily operations of an organization. Organizations must continuously modify their business applications to accommodate changes to business processes. However, business applications are often designed and developed without referring to the documented definitions of business processes. Modifying business applications is a time‐consuming and error‐prone task. To correctly perform this task, developers require an in‐depth understanding of multi‐tiered applications and the definitions of the business processes that they implement. In this paper, we present an approach that automatically recovers business process definitions from multi‐tiered business applications. Given the starting UI screen of a particular business process, the approach recovers the process definition by tracing the flow of control throughout the different tiers of the business application. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through a case study using 15 business applications from three large open‐source projects. Our case study demonstrates that our approach can recover business process definitions from the implementation with high precision and recall. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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