MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116146752 · doi:10.1109/icci.2004.28

Release planning under fuzzy effort constraints

2004· article· en· W2116146752 on OpenAlex
An Ngo‐The, Guenther Ruhe, Wei Shen

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

VenueIEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceStakeholderQuality (philosophy)Fuzzy setProduct (mathematics)Operations researchManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A software release is a collection of new and/or changed features that form a new product. Release planning is a very complex problem including different stakeholder perspectives, competing objectives and different types of constraints. Most of the information is usually uncertain. Under such circumstances, the use of crisp values is only an approximation of reality. We propose an approach improving existing methods for release planning by handling the uncertainty of data using fuzzy logic. Concretely, we consider fuzziness with respect to the effort estimates, effort capacity constraints and the different objectives related to cost, benefit and quality. The satisfaction of traditional constraints on effort is performed using a fuzzy system to obtain an overall satisfaction level of a solution. This is considered to be an essential support for the actual decision-making. All the proposed concepts and the complete approach are illustrated by a case study example.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.270 · 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