MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406494387 · doi:10.1145/3712008

Automation in Model-Driven Engineering: A Look Back, and Ahead

2025· article· en· W4406494387 on OpenAlexafffund
Loli Burgueño, Davide Di Ruscio, Houari Sahraoui, Manuel Wimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónUniversidad de Málaga
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomationSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) provides a huge body of knowledge of automation for many different engineering tasks, especially those involving transitioning from design to implementation. With the huge progress made in AI, questions arise about the future of MDE, such as how existing MDE techniques and technologies can be improved or how other activities that currently lack dedicated support can also be automated. However, at the same time, it has to be revisited where and how models should be used to keep the engineers in the loop for creating, operating, and maintaining complex systems. To trigger dedicated research on these open points, we discuss the history of automation in MDE and present perspectives on how automation in MDE can be further improved and which obstacles have to be overcome in both the medium and long-term.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.036
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology→Same topicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques→French-language works237,207→