The impact of intercultural factors on global software development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the concept of culture, and the potential impact of intercultural dynamics of software development. Many of the difficulties confronting today's global software development (GSD) environment have little to do with technical issues; rather, they are "human" issues that occur when extensive collaboration and communication among developers with distinct cultural backgrounds are required. Although project managers are reporting that intercultural factors are impacting software practices and artifacts and deserve more detailed study, little analytical research has been conducted in this area other than anecdotal testimonials by software professionals. This paper presents an introductory analysis of the effect that intercultural factors have on global software development. The paper first establishes a framework for intercultural variations by introducing several models commonly used to define culture. Cross-cultural issues that often arise in software development are then identified. The paper continues by explaining the importance of taking intercultural issues seriously and proposes some ideas for future research in the area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it