MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404220704 · doi:10.1007/s10270-024-01216-7

Continuous Evolution of Digital Twins using the DarTwin Notation

2024· article· en· W4404220704 on OpenAlexaff
Joost Mertens, Stefan Klikovits, Francis Bordeleau, Joachim Denil, Øystein Haugen

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware & Systems Modeling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsNotationComputer scienceMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite best efforts, various challenges remain in the creation and maintenance processes of digital twins (DTs). One of those primary challenges is the constant, continuous and omnipresent evolution of systems, their user’s needs and their environment, demanding the adaptation of the developed DT systems. DTs are developed for a specific purpose, which generally entails the monitoring, analysis, simulation or optimisation of a specific aspect of an actual system, referred to as the actual twin (AT). As such, when the twin system changes, that is either the AT itself changes, or the scope/purpose of a DT is modified, the DTs usually evolve in close synchronicity with the AT. As DTs are software systems, the best practices or methodologies for software evolution can be leveraged. This paper tackles the challenge of maintaining a (set of) DT(s) throughout the evolution of the user’s requirements and priorities and tries to understand how this evolution takes place. In doing so, we provide two contributions: (i) we develop , a visual notation form that enables reasoning on a twin system, its purposes, properties and implementation, and (ii) we introduce a set of architectural transformations that describe the evolution of DT systems. The development of these transformations is driven and illustrated by the evolution and transformations of a family home’s DT, whose purpose is expanded, changed and re-prioritised throughout its ongoing lifecycle. Additionally, we evaluate the transformations on a laboratory-scale gantry crane’s DT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware & Systems ModelingSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207