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 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 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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
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