MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W200284635

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

2007· article· en· W200284635 on OpenAlexaff
Raimund Moser, Witold Pedrycz, Giancarlo Succi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207