MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120427215 · doi:10.5555/504800.504836

A unified process for software and documentation development

2000· article· en· W2120427215 on OpenAlex
Michael Priestley, Mary Hunter Utt

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 institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationRational Unified ProcessGoal-Driven Software Development ProcessWorkflowSoftware engineeringComputer scienceSoftware development processSoftware documentationProcess (computing)Internal documentationSoftware developmentTechnical documentationSoftwareSoftware constructionProgramming languageDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes the integration of the documentation development process into the rational unified process (RUP), a formal development process for software applications. Specifically, the paper identifies (in RUP parlance) the workers in the process (such as technical writer, information architect), the artifacts required by and produced by the documentation process (including concept, task and reference documentation), and the documentation development workflow (the activities of the workers who produce the artifacts). This paper describes a documentation development process in terms of its integration points with software development processes, and also in terms of its own flow and progression as a separate process.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.273 · 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