Do all task dependencies require coordination? the role of task properties in identifying critical coordination needs in software projects
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
Several methods exist to detect the coordination needs within software teams. Evidence exists that developers’ awareness about coordination needs improves work performance. Distinguishing with certainty between critical and trivial coordination needs and identifying and prioritizing which specific tasks a pair of developers should coordinate about remains an open problem. We investigate what work dependencies should be considered when establishing coordination needs within a development team. We use our conceptualization of work dependencies named Proximity and leverage machine learning techniques to analyze what additional task properties are indicative of coordination needs. In a case study of the Mylyn project, we were able to identify from all potential coordination requirements a subset of 17% that are most critical. We define critical coordination requirements as those that can cause the most disruption to task duration when left unmanaged. These results imply that coordination awareness tools could be enhanced to make developers aware of only the coordination needs that can bring about the highest performance benefit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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