Separating Users' Views in a Development Process for Agile Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agile methods require a rigorous development process that takes into account a permanent involvement of user in all development steps. Several advanced researches have treated the various aspects of agile development methods. However, they lack rigorous and specific processes based on explicit and detailed definition of userspsila organization and interaction during development process. In this paper, we have suggested an approach that guides software projects managers in assignment of integrated users in development process. The basic definition of this process is based on a set of layers represented by nested circles. Circles from the center to the external surface represent, respectively, initial or starting userspsila requirements, software architecture, design level and codification level. These layers are decomposed into slices from the center to the external circle. Each slice represents a different view that corresponds to a specific class of users. In our process, developers have not constrained by a specific views approach, they can choose the appropriate views approach from the literature (e.g. 4+1 view approach). Initial requirements, in this process, are represented by an extension of use case diagram definition of UML. The proposed process is driven by requirements. It is used for large software systems developed by a numerous and heterogeneous development teams. The developed process is characterized by its simplicity, and it can be easily adapted for other agile processes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".