MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121111390 · doi:10.1109/ms.2008.51

The Software Engineering Silver Bullet Conundrum

2008· article· en· W2121111390 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Software · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilver bulletSoftwareComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSocial software engineeringEngineeringSoftware developmentSoftware constructionMaterials scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fred Brooks argued in 1986 that, for various reasons, no software engineering silver bullet would be found in the next decade. I argue now that the main reason that there can be no software engineering silver bullet is that as soon as one is produced, we software engineers move on almost immediately to solve even harder problems for which the silver bullet does not help much. That a silver bullet quickly ceases to be silver is the basic conundrum of software engineering silver bullets.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.037
Scholarly communication0.0130.031
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0130.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE SoftwareSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207