MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009884275 · doi:10.1145/1520340.1520398

Agile user experience SIG

2009· article· en· W2009884275 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn Miller, Desirée Sy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentUser storyComputer scienceAgile usability engineeringUser experience designProcess managementUser-centered designProcess (computing)Work (physics)Agile Unified ProcessUser needsKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionSoftware engineeringEngineeringMultimediaSoftware development processSoftware developmentSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile development is being adopted by companies with greater frequency every year, resulting in changes to the way user experience practitioners work. Unfortunately, there has been little guidance on how to incorporate User Centered Design (UCD) into the agile process so most practitioners either struggle alone or seek out others in the same boat.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.047

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersona Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207