MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994504150 · doi:10.5539/cis.v2n3p64

Positive Affects Inducer on Software Quality

2009· article· en· W1994504150 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Utara Malaysia
KeywordsAgile software developmentComputer scienceExtreme programmingMetric (unit)Quality (philosophy)SoftwareContentmentEmpirical researchAffect (linguistics)Extreme programming practicesSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringPsychologyStatisticsSoftware development processOperations managementSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an early empirical study on an agile methodology (Extreme Programming) using Positive Affect metric. The question of interest is whether an agile methodology has any distinct outcome on the positive affectivity of the software developers. And whether these affects will contribute to the quality of software produced. Quantitative methods were utilized, including participative observation and simple statistical tests such as Spearman Correlation and Mann-Whitney test. The results showed that Extreme Programming has positive affectivity which leads to the increase in software quality. This study suggests that when people experience joy and mild contentment, they are more likely to be more creative over wider range of problems, become more resilient over time and are more likely to develop long-term plans and goals.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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