MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506069501 · doi:10.1109/scam.2001.972666

Application maintenance using software agents

2001· article· en· W1506069501 on OpenAlexaff
Arun Sharma, Miriam A. M. Capretz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTransactional Analysis in Psychotherapy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware maintenanceSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringIntelligent agentDocumentationSoftwareSoftware agentSoftware constructionSoftware systemThe InternetSoftware development processBackportingProcess (computing)World Wide WebArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of software agents as a tool for helping in the maintenance process of a software application are shown. The goal of this research was to develop a group of intelligent agents that worked together to aid in software maintenance by automatically informing the appropriate individuals of any changes that were made to an open-source Internet software application. This type of application is suited for intelligent agents because the source code is accessed and modified by many users on the Internet, meaning that the application is under constant change. The methodology of completion for this research can be subdivided into four categories: interface agent algorithm development, implementation using Visual C++, multi-agent system development, and testing. The overall goal is accomplished using a network of four agents each having a specific task; one to monitor the code base (Monitor Agent), one to determine the impact of any software changes (Impact Agent), one to search for pertinent documentation (Search Agent), and finally one to e-mail the appropriate software maintainer (E-mail Agent). The final stage in reaching the objectives of this research is the design of a multi-agent system in which the agents will interact with each other using an agent communication language to autonomously maintain the software application.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransactional Analysis in PsychotherapyFrench-language works237,207