MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086221358 · doi:10.1109/52.903173

Improving subjective estimates using paired comparisons

2001· article· en· W2086221358 on OpenAlexaff
Эдуардо Миранда

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Software · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Research Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareScale (ratio)SizingData scienceSoftware technical reviewSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringIndustrial engineeringSoftware qualityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the existence of structured methods for software sizing and effort estimation, the so-called "expert" approach seems to be the prevalent way to produce estimates in the software industry. This article presents a method based on paired comparisons, which social science researchers use for measuring when there is no accepted measurement scale or when a measurement instrument does not exist. Although not new, the idea has received little attention in the literature.

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)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.409
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.409
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations58
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE SoftwareSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207