MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W58149836

A Proposal for a Lightweight Rigorous UML-Based Development Method for Reliable Systems

2001· article· en· W58149836 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageConsistency (knowledge bases)UML toolSoftware engineeringDocumentationExtreme programmingProgramming languageApplications of UMLSoftwareSoftware developmentClass diagramCoding (social sciences)Process (computing)Software development processArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lightweight UML-based software development method for building reliable software systems is proposed. It attempts to combine the coding emphasis of Extreme Programming with the utility of modelling, while offering a counterpoint to Extreme Modelling. The method is built atop of a subset of UML, making use of contracts for documentation and for run-time (and potentially static) checking. Rules are given to establish consistency of views of a system, and a proposal for a tool prototype that implements the diagrams and which helps to establish their consistency is outlined. The key elements of a process, which emphasizes rapid production of code and test drivers, are also outlined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · 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