MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W127986474

Defining Strategic Dependency Situations in Requirements Elicitation.

2006· article· en· W127986474 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

VenueWER · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntentionalityRequirements elicitationAutonomyAgency (philosophy)Dependency (UML)Computer scienceKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Face (sociological concept)Process managementManagement scienceSoftwareBusinessRequirements analysisEngineeringSoftware engineeringSociologyEpistemologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been a growing interest in the Agent-oriented paradigm to cope with the needs imposed by nowadays complex and networked systems. Developing Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) calls for addressing aspects such as interaction, autonomy, collaboration and pro-activeness. One way to cope with these needs is to have agency properties as well as intentionality in the center of the software development process. In this work a proposal is presented to bring intentionality and agency properties to the early stages of software development. The proposal is based on Strategic Dependency Situations (SDsituations) as a simple technique for helping requirements elicitation. Strategic Dependency Situations applies the Agent-Oriented approach based on intentionality to face the complexity of MAS developing.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.244 · 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