MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136714207 · doi:10.1109/agile.2007.60

The Social Nature of Agile Teams

2007· article· en· W2136714207 on OpenAlex

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 institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentPrideKnowledge managementAgile usability engineeringAgile Unified ProcessGrounded theoryAgency (philosophy)Lean software developmentExtreme programming practicesComputer scienceQualitative researchProcess managementEngineeringSoftwareSoftware developmentSociologySoftware development processSoftware engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile methodologies represent a 'people' centered approach to delivering software. This paper investigates the social processes that contribute to their success. Qualitative grounded theory was used to explore socio-psychological experiences in agile teams, where agile teams were viewed as complex adaptive socio-technical systems. Advances in systems theory suggest that human agency changes the nature of a system and how it should be studied. In particular, end-goals and positive sources of motivation, such as pride, become important. Research included the questions: How do agile practices structure and mediate the experience of individuals developing software? And in particular, how do agile practices mediate the interaction between individuals and the team as a whole? Results support an understanding of how social identity and collective effort are supported by agile methods.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.282 · 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