MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010021079 · doi:10.1145/1557626.1557636

Agile development

2009· article· en· W2010021079 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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentProcess managementSoftware developmentComputer scienceKnowledge managementBusinessSoftwareSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale projects, are often delivering low value software to businesses due to stakeholders' misunderstanding. Evolutionary software development represents an alternative to plan-driven development in order to tackle today's turbulent environments. In agile development, a type of evolutionary development, the product owner (P.O.) who is the customer representative---real accountable role---is ill-equipped to identify and prioritize the stakeholders' most success-critical expectations and potential sources of business value. Furthermore, the tools he can use have their own scalability issues that question their underlying principles. Moreover, without a substantial involvement to take into account all stakeholders, software providers are more likely acting as commodity-utility providers than real business partners. In today's business context, there is a clear need for a value-driven development which embraces changes along with higher visibility and understanding of business transformations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
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