MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101810296 · doi:10.1109/iwspm.2008.7

Supporting the Dynamic Reprioritization of Requirements in Agile Development of Software Products

2008· article· en· W2101810296 on OpenAlexaff
Zornitza Racheva, Maya Daneva, Luigi Buglione

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentRequirement prioritizationRequirementComputer sciencePrioritizationAgile usability engineeringAgile Unified ProcessRequirements engineeringProcess managementEmpirical researchNew product developmentExtreme programming practicesSoftware developmentSoftwareSoftware development processBusinessSoftware engineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile requirements engineering is the approach of choice for many software producers whose realities include highly uncertain requirements, use of new development technology, and clients willing to explore the ways in which an evolving product can help their business goals. From customer's perspective, the activity of continuous requirements reprioritization forms the very core of today's agile approaches. However, the freedom for clients to do so does not come for free. This paper presents results of a literature review on agile requirements prioritization methods, derives a conceptual model for understanding the inter-iteration prioritization process in terms of inputs and outcomes, and identifies issues and solutions pertinent to agile prioritization. The latter are derived from the authors' experiences and by using empirical data, published earlier by other authors.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207