MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049077314 · doi:10.1145/361651.361654

Reuse libraries for real-time multimedia over the network

2000· article· en· W2049077314 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Benedicenti, Giancarlo Succi, Tullio Vernazza, George L. Kovács, Andrea Valerio

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringProcess (computing)Coping (psychology)Engineering managementWorld Wide WebEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the software industry there is an increasingly critical need to reduce the costs of producing software, while at the same time providing higher quality and coping with an increasing demand for sophisticated, ultra-complex systems. Software development with and for reuse promises to address this situation.This paper considers a case study involving a company in Northeastern Italy which undertook the implementation of a reuse-oriented, multimedia, network-distributed software entities library. It was soon discovered that unfortunately institutionalizing reuse is not a straightforward process. Despite completing the implementation and refinement of the tool, the firm encountered resistance in getting software engineers and managers to use it.The main role in reuse was played by management taking decisions in setting up an appropriate corporate reuse policy that rendered the reuse application tool effective. This paper surveys the associated problems and suggesting potential solutions, making references to the particular case study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing ReviewSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207