Reusing Your Favourite Analysis Framework to Handle Workflows of Product Line Models
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
Model management frameworks support a wide array of analyses, transformations, and workflows, but lack native support for handling product lines of models. Yet the ubiquity of domains that heavily use model-driven techniques and are built using product lines, such as automotive, require adaptation, or lifting, of model management frameworks to be variability-aware. Lifting might introduce new implementation and validation costs, especially in safety-critical contexts. To facilitate the implementation and validation of variability-aware model management workflows, this paper provides a novel taxonomy of lifting methods. We compare the lifting methods in their capacity to reuse existing components and validation results. We then define a general framework for lifting and validating model management workflows, and report on an experience of lifting and validating modeling tasks and workflows in an existing Eclipse-based model management framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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