MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026487650 · doi:10.1109/iwsm-mensura.2011.45

Using the COSMIC Method to Evaluate the Quality of the Documentation of Agile User Stories

2011· article· en· W2026487650 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
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentDocumentationUser storyComputer scienceSoftware documentationQuality (philosophy)COSMIC cancer databaseUser requirements documentSoftwareSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware development processAstrophysicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile Project Management (APM) must adopt dynamic project plans to better handle the uncertainty and unpredictability associated with the Agile Software Development (ASD) methodologies. For these dynamic project plans, the functional size of the evolving requirements can be measured with COSMIC measurement method. To support this measurement activity, the quality of the documentation of the user stories, which represent the user requirements, is important to be interpreted correctly. In the research reported here, the COSMIC method is used to analyze and report on the quality of the documentation of user stories.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.445
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