MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016495872 · doi:10.3166/jds.13.399-421

Decision Support for Software Release Planning Using e-Assistants

2004· article· en· W2016495872 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

VenueJournal of Decision System · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIterated functionSoftwareSoftware release life cycleProcess (computing)Decision support systemSoftware engineeringOperations researchSoftware developmentData miningSoftware qualityProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of assigning most appropriate requirements to a series of releases of a software system is difficult to solve due to uncertainty from several sources, for example, the preferences of different stakeholders. We present a solution to this problem by providing a flexible release planning procedure using a solution generation engine, ReleasePlanner®, and so-called e-assistants. In our iterated e-release planning process, e-assistants present to their human stakeholders solutions to variants of the problem instance. By selecting the best suited solutions, the stakeholders allow the e-assistants to elicit more and more their implicit preferences. To guarantee termination, in each round the assignment of some requirements to releases is fixed, based on analysing concordance and non-discordance of assignments between the preferred candidate solutions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.282 · 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