Mismatch handling for COTS selection: a case study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using Commercial Off‐The‐Shelf (COTS) products to build software systems requires the evaluation of existing COTS products, the selection of the COTS that best fit system requirements, and the integration of the selected COTS into the system. During this process, it is inevitable to encounter two types of mismatches: (1) COTS mismatches , which are encountered during COTS selection between requirements and COTS features, due to an excess or shortage of COTS features, and (2) architectural mismatches , which arise when integrating multiple COTS products that do not fit well together. This paper focuses on the ‘ COTS mismatch ’ problem. The paper describes a real‐world case study of a single COTS selection with the aid of a method called MiHOS (Mismatch Handling for COTS Selection) to handle the COTS mismatches. MiHOS runs on top of existing COTS selection models in order to properly address COTS mismatches with limited resources. The case study was conducted in the e‐service domain. The goal was to validate MiHOS and to answer two key questions: (1) How useful is decision support during different phases in the process mismatch handling? And (2) what is the effort vs benefit of using MiHOS? The results are promising and illustrate the potential benefits of using MiHOS. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it