MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60592656

Using Constraints with Action Language for Model Evolution.

2007· article· en· W60592656 on OpenAlex
Shahid Alam, Samuel A. Ajila

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
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceClass diagramUnified Modeling LanguageObject Constraint LanguageProgramming languageModeling languageSoftware engineeringSoftware evolutionVisual modelingSoftware developmentSet (abstract data type)SoftwareApplications of UMLSoftware construction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract- Since the advent of model driven software engineering (MDSE) it has become necessary to develop techniques and tools for model evolution. In this paper we examine two issues and propose a solution to resolve them. The first is the automation of model evolution and the second is the support of software evolution in modeling languages. We extend Object Constraint Language (OCL) with actions and define a new language CAL (Constraints with Action Language), which gives a user the ability to use constraints with actions on models. CAL contains a small set of constructs, but is powerful enough to be used efficiently for typical software evolution management operations like impact analysis, correction, improvement and enhancement of models. One of the CAL applications, a prototype tool VCAL (visual CAL), for dependency analysis of UML Class Diagrams is presented.

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)0.000
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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.269 · 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