Object‐oriented software development antecedents that influence product bug density
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Presents the results of a study aimed at investigating the antecedent software development factors that affect quality of final products. By monitoring those causal factors from the early phases of development, one can have a final product of enhanced quality and reduced costs. Design/methodology/approach The study considered an unprecedentedly large number of 30 C++ object‐oriented systems of varied size and application domains, a comprehensive suite of large number of predictive software design or code measures in one study, and compared their results on a common platform. Findings It was found that many of the software design or code measures have a significant positive or negative relationship with quality. Originality/value The value of the paper lies in the fact that it addresses some of the major problems from which most of the studies conducted in this research domain suffer. The objective and justification of this paper are to address these deficiencies, in addition to validating some of the results obtained in earlier studies. Another important value of the paper lies in the fact that, based on the results of the study, the paper enlists useful lessons learned that can provide some practical insight for practitioners and quality managers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it