MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145768041 · doi:10.1109/wicsa.2008.31

Architectural Effects on Requirements Decisions: An Exploratory Study

2008· article· en· W2145768041 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Miller, Remo Ferrari, Nazim H. Madhavji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringRequirements engineeringSoftware architectureExploratory researchRequirements analysisSoftware requirementsArchitectureNon-functional requirementRequirements managementSystems engineeringSoftwareEngineering managementKnowledge managementSoftware developmentEngineeringSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of the "manner in which an existing software architecture affects requirements decisionmaking" is recognised as important in the research community; however, to our knowledge, this issue has not been scientifically explored. This paper describes an exploratory study on this question. Specific types of architectural effects on requirements decisions are identified, as are different aspects of the architecture together with the extent of their effects. This paper gives quantitative measures and qualitative interpretation of the findings. The understanding gained from this study has several implications in the areas of: project planning and risk management, requirements engineering and software architecture technology, architecture evolution, tighter integration of Requirements Engineering and Software Architecting processes, and middleware in architectures. The study involved six requirements engineering teams (of university students), whose task was to elicit new requirements for upgrading a preexisting banking software infrastructure. The data collected was based on a new meta-model for requirements decisions, which is a bi-product of this study.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207