MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107715674 · doi:10.1109/52.819970

A modular software process mini-assessment method

2000· article· en· W2107715674 on OpenAlexaff
Karl E. Wiegers, D.C. Sturzenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Software · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Process (computing)Computer scienceSoftware engineeringModular designSoftware development processPersonal software processSoftwareFocus (optics)Process managementSoftware Engineering Process GroupSoftware developmentEngineering managementEngineeringSoftware constructionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article describes one approach for dealing with a common problem in software process assessment: some organizations want feedback on their processes, but they cannot devote three arduous weeks to an "official" CMM assessment. In the mini-assessment method presented, individual assessment components are selected to focus the investigation on specific concerns and to scope the effort to a level appropriate to the organization.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE SoftwareSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207