MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238716416 · doi:10.1109/icse.1998.671356

Design components: towards software composition at the design level

2002· article· en· W4238716416 on OpenAlex

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 institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Software designComposition (language)Software engineeringComponent-based software engineeringSoftware design patternStructural patternSoftwareSystems engineeringDesign processProcess (computing)Software developmentProgramming languageEngineeringWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Component-based software development has proven effective for systems implementation in well-understood application domains, but is still insufficient for the creation of reusable and changeable software architectures. Design patterns address these shortcomings by capturing the expertise that is necessary for reusable design solutions. However, there is so far no methodical approach to providing these conceptual design building blocks in a tangible and composable form. To address this limitation, we introduce the notion of design components, reified design patterns fit for software composition. In this paper, we define design components and explain their constituents and services. Furthermore, we detail the activities of design composition and illustrate them as a process within a four-dimensional design space. Moreover, we describe a prototype of a design composition environment. A case study helps illustrating our approach.

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)0.001
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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.035 · 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