MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W204681312

A Test-Driven Approach to Establishing & Managing Agile Product Lines.

2008· article· en· W204681312 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

VenueSoftware Product Lines · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentUnit testingReuseTraceabilityComputer scienceAcceptance testingSoftware engineeringTest Management ApproachTest suiteTest (biology)Code refactoringSystems engineeringReliability engineeringTest caseEngineeringSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware construction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test Driven Development (TDD) is an agile method that emphasizes writing tests before writing code as a means of 1) assuring the satisfaction of customer requirements, and 2) reinforcing good design habits. While the first objective is usually accomplished by acceptance tests, the second objective is achieved by unit tests. The tests also serve as a multilevel cohesive reference of the system specifications. We propose the use of this referencing mechanism – test artifacts – to establish and manage agile product lines. In this paper, we delve into some of the issues that need to be tackled before test artifacts are relied on as a driving force for reuse in product lines. These issues include establishing a framework for reuse, tests comparability, test traceability, test refactoring and test versioning. We also discuss the suitability of acceptance tests and unit tests as reusable artifacts, and we present a preliminary study to analyze their utilization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.223 · 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