MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124740781 · doi:10.1145/986710.986720

The programmer life-cycle

2004· article· en· W2124740781 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Ovans

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgrammerProductivityComputer scienceConstruct (python library)SoftwareProgramming languageEconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional analysis of programmer productivity ignores the reality that work rates of programmers are variable over time. Not unlike the software systems they construct, programmers follow a predictable life-cycle. However, the programmer life-cycle is not comprised of activities but rather by phases that directly affect and predict productivity. The sequence of phases is: euphoric, productive, irreplaceable, resentful, bored, and unproductive. Overall productivity is characterized by an initial six month period of intense interest, at which time productivity rates are often an order of magnitude higher than the oft-quoted 500 LOC/month average. After a short period of volatility, the programmer then enters a prolonged phase of steadily dwindling interest, resulting in productivity rates that mimic the average. Each time a programmer switches employers or begins a significantly new project, the life-cycle starts anew.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207