MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957789923 · doi:10.1109/icsm.1998.738502

Practices of software maintenance

2002· article· en· W1957789923 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 Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationSoftware maintenanceSoftware engineeringComputer scienceSoftware systemWork (physics)Field (mathematics)SoftwareInformation systemSoftware developmentScale (ratio)Engineering managementEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the results of an interview study conducted at ten industrial sites. The interview focused on the work practices of software engineers engaged in maintaining large scale systems. Five 'truths' emerged from this study. First, software maintenance engineers are experts in the systems they are maintaining. Second, source code is the primary source of information about systems. Third, the documentation is used, but not necessarily trusted. Fourth, maintenance control systems are important repositories of information about systems. Finally, reproduction of problems and/or problem scenarios is essential to problem solutions. These truths confirm much of the conventional wisdom in the field. However, in fleshing them out, details were elaborated, and additionally new knowledge was acquired. These results are discussed with respect to tool design.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207