MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W200284635

Incremental Effort Prediction Models in Agile Development using Radial Basis Functions.

2007· article· en· W200284635 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

VenueSoftware Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtreme programmingAgile software developmentComputer scienceExtreme programming practicesSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentScratchOverhead (engineering)SoftwareAgile Unified ProcessEstimationAgile usability engineeringSoftware development processIndustrial engineeringSystems engineeringEngineeringProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the impediments to the wide dissemination of software estimation and measurement practices is the significant overhead imposed by these practices on the project and development team. Despite significant investment in research, the lightweight estimation of development effort is still an unsolved problem in software engineering. This study proposes a new, lightweight effort estimation model aimed at iterative development environments, as Agile Processes. The model is based on Radial Basis Functions. It is experimented in two semi-industrial projects carried out using a customized version of Extreme Programming (XP). The results are promising and evidence that the proposed model can be developed incrementally and from scratch for new projects without resorting itself to historic data.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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