MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074241100 · doi:10.1109/agile.2010.6

Reactive Variability Management in Agile Software Development

2010· article· en· W2074241100 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 institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentAgile Unified ProcessAgile usability engineeringComputer scienceUsabilityExtreme programming practicesCode refactoringIterative and incremental developmentUser storyLean software developmentProcess managementSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware prototypingSystems engineeringSoftwareRisk analysis (engineering)Software development processEngineeringBusinessHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile organizations focus on developing software systems that satisfy their current customer base, without worrying about best practices to handle variations of requirements in the system. Scaling agile methods up to adopt variability management practices in their traditional form is challenging. In this paper, we discuss the challenges and we contribute a lightweight, iterative approach that enables agile organizations to manage variability on demand in a reactive manner. The approach relies on agile practices like iterative development, refactoring, and continuous integration and testing. We present a case study to show how the approach was used to handle variability arising from technical and usability issues, and we provide a discussion of the advantages and limitations of the approach.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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