Guidelines for Artifacts to Support Industry-Relevant Research on Self-Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artifacts support evaluating new research results and help comparing them with the state of the art in a field of interest. Over the past years, several artifacts have been introduced to support research in the field of self-adaptive systems. While these artifacts have shown their value, it is not clear to what extent these artifacts support research on problems in self-adaptation that are relevant to industry. This paper provides a set of guidelines for artifacts that aim at supporting industry-relevant research on selfadaptation. The guidelines that are grounded on data obtained from a survey with practitioners were derived during working sessions at the 17th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. Artifact providers can use the guidelines for aligning future artifacts with industry needs; they can also be used to evaluate the industrial relevance of existing artifacts. We also propose an artifact template.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".