{"id":"W2617580714","doi":"10.1108/bpmj-02-2017-0028","title":"Improving software quality using Six Sigma DMAIC-based approach: a case study","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Business Process Management Journal","topic":"Software Engineering Techniques and Practices","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":29,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Concordia University","funders":"","keywords":"DMAIC; Six Sigma; Computer science; Software quality control; Software quality; Quality management; Process management; Quality (philosophy); Software quality analyst; Software; Software development; Manufacturing engineering; Operations management; Engineering; Management system","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","scholarly_communication"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002074213,0.0003266787,0.0003244273,0.000306798,0.001874542,0.003452235,0.002362011,0.00007241977,0.000007989042],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000530833,0.0002938175,0.0000886922,0.0004292956,0.0000524102,0.002972923,0.0007338755,0.0004097153,0.000002040544],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009687111,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001360143,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004515613,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0000174913,"domain_scores_codex":[0.99761,0.0001198231,0.000523555,0.0005817694,0.0006948487,0.0004700103],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9968265,0.00009575618,0.001063694,0.001375613,0.0004861999,0.0001522323],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001794914,0.004259633,0.1064198,0.004534683,0.0006367603,0.03936512,0.002724814,0.10308,0.00005173618,0.002238876,0.000207163,0.736302],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.009154642,0.0005542839,0.06752025,0.0009031903,0.0008055883,0.01854713,0.005039734,0.8833135,0.0002496903,0.008349853,0.001573895,0.003988214],"study_design_candidate":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1189799,0.00006954189,0.8792307,0.0001509249,0.0004729349,0.0004782083,0.000001026992,0.0004734214,0.0001434161],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7081719,0.000005651289,0.291529,0.00006038311,0.0001465785,0.00003644596,5.798498e-7,0.00002572476,0.00002369289],"genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7802336,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999514,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.07601715894082328,"score_gpt":0.3539820429896322,"score_spread":0.2779648840488089,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}