MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065638822

An empirical evaluation roadmap for iStar 2.0

2016· article· en· W7065638822 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadEuropean Commission
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Meaning (existential)Empirical researchCore (optical fiber)Order (exchange)Quality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The iStar 2.0 modeling language is the result of a two-year community effort intended at providing a solid, unified basis for teaching and conducting research with i*. The language was released with important qualities in mind, such as keeping a core set of primitives, providing a clear meaning for those primitives, and flattening the learning curve for new users. In this paper, we propose a list of qualities against which we intend iStar 2.0 to be evaluated. Furthermore, we describe an empirical evaluation plan, which we devise in order to assess the extent to which the language meets the identified qualities and to inform the development of further versions of the language. Besides explaining the objectives and steps of our planned empirical studies, we make a call for involving the research community in our endeavor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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