MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60592656

Using Constraints with Action Language for Model Evolution.

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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.051
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207