MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W185097455 · doi:10.11575/prism/2448

A framework for the requirements engineering process development

2005· article· en· W185097455 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

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware Engineering Process GroupSocial software engineeringRequirements engineeringSoftware developmentProcess (computing)RequirementTeam software processPersonal software processSoftware requirementsConstructiveSoftware development processComputer scienceEngineeringSoftware engineeringSoftwareSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the processes in software engineering, requirements engineering (RE) plays a vital role in ensuring the overall success of the software engineering process. However, many of the substantial problems that the software industry faces today are still the same as the ones discovered during the software engineering crisis 36 years ago. Poor RE practices have been blamed as one of the major reasons contributing to the vicious circle. RE is a discipline emphasizing the implementation of engineering disciplines into the RE process by using various good practices, techniques and methodologies. A sound RE process is the foundation for the overall quality of any software product. Even though numerous process models, good practices, and techniques have been developed which aim at providing necessary support for RE processes, a huge gap still exists between the theory and practices. One of the major reasons contributing to this phenomenon is that there is a lack of suitable tools and/or guidance to support developing the most suitable RE process model and selecting the most suitable RE techniques for a software project. The effective ways have to be found to help fill in the gap. The objectives of this research were, therefore, to investigate a theoretically sound and practically feasible framework which can provide constructive and productive solutions to the problems identified by combining the theories and technologies of advanced software engineering, requirements engineering, knowledge engineering, and decision support. The outcome of this is the A Fbramework for Rbequirements Ebngineering pRbocess dEbvelopment (FRERE), which consists of a requirements engineering knowledge base, methodologies for RE process development and RE techniques selection, RE process assessment models, and a prototype of the FRERE tool. The framework provides constructive methodologies, with the help of the requirements engineering knowledge base and process assessment models, to develop the most suitable RE process model and suitable RE techniques for the given software project. The FRERE tool is a knowledge-based decision support system which can advise the requirements engineers during the development of RE process. The case study conducted during the research has shown the feasibility of the framework.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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