MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934609030 · doi:10.1109/enabl.1998.725671

Using a groupware space for distributed requirements engineering

2002· article· en· W1934609030 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative softwareRequirements analysisComputer scienceRequirements engineeringSoftware requirementsAsynchronous communicationProcess (computing)Software engineeringRequirements elicitationSystems engineeringSoftware requirements specificationRequirementSoftwareSoftware developmentEngineeringSoftware designKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements engineering (RE) is a necessary part of the software development process, as it helps customers and designers identify necessary system requirements. If these stakeholders are separated by distance, we argue that a distributed groupware environment supporting cooperative requirements engineering process must be supplied that allows them to negotiate software requirements. Such a groupware environment must support aspects of joint work relevant to requirements negotiation: synchronous and asynchronous collaboration, telepresence, and teledata. It should also add explicit support for a structured RE process, which includes the team's ability to discuss multiple perspectives during requirements acquisition and traceability. We chose the TeamWave software platform as an environment that supplied the basic collaboration capabilities, and tailored it to fit the specific needs of RE.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.202 · 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