MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098756414 · doi:10.1109/cseet.2011.5876142

Panel on the role of graduate software and systems engineering bodies of knowledge in formulating graduate software engineering curricula

2011· article· en· W2098756414 on OpenAlexaff
Barry Boehm, Pierre Bourque, Don Gelosh, Thomas B. Hilburn, Art Pyster, Mary Shaw, J.B. Thompson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware Engineering Process GroupSoftware engineeringCurriculumBody of knowledgeSocial software engineeringEngineering managementComputer scienceKnowledge engineeringSoftware requirementsSoftware developmentSoftwareEngineering ethicsEngineeringSoftware constructionKnowledge managementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), published in 2004, and now under revision, has influenced many software engineering graduate programs worldwide. In 2009, guidelines were published for graduate programs in software engineering (GSWE2009). GSWE2009, now sponsored by both the IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery, strongly rely on the SWEBOK but also recommends specific systems engineering knowledge for students to master. Today, an international team is creating a rigorous Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) with the help of the IEEE Computer Society and the International Council on Systems Engineering and other professional societies. As it matures, the SEBoK should influence future versions of GSWE2009 and graduate program curricula worldwide. This panel will examine the influence of bodies of knowledge on both the creation of new graduate software engineering programs and the evolution of existing ones.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207