MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400559363 · doi:10.1007/s10270-024-01194-w

Systematizing modeler experience (MX) in model-driven engineering success stories

2024· article· en· W4400559363 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

VenueSoftware & Systems Modeling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaLeibniz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsSoftware versioningPerceptionComputer scienceCode (set theory)UsabilitySoftware engineeringTechnology acceptance modelUser experience designKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionPsychologyProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modeling is often associated with complex and heavy tooling, leading to a negative perception among practitioners. However, alternative paradigms, such as everything-as-code or low-code, are gaining acceptance due to their perceived ease of use. This paper explores the dichotomy between these perceptions through the lens of “modeler experience” (MX). MX includes factors such as user experience, motivation, integration, collaboration and versioning, and language complexity. We examine the relationships between these factors and their impact on different modeling usage scenarios. Our findings highlight the importance of considering MX when understanding how developers interact with modeling tools and the complexities of modeling and associated tooling.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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