MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146892008 · doi:10.1109/adc.2005.32

Introducing agile into a software development Capstone project

2006· article· en· W2146892008 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 institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentExtreme programmingAgile usability engineeringExtreme programming practicesSoftware engineeringAgile Unified ProcessComputer scienceSoftware developmentLean software developmentSoftware development processCapstoneEngineering managementScrumPair programmingSoftwareSet (abstract data type)User storyEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conveying principles of software analysis, design and implementation in a classroom setting is problematic. When the course involves actual hands on development with clients drawn from industry, the challenges are magnified. This paper discusses the experiences and observations of a set of 10 month independent external projects undertaken by final year students in the computer systems technology program using agile for the first time. We compare situations and observations of projects developed following an agile approach with XP programming by K. Beck in "embracing change with extreme programming" (1999), to our previous projects developed in a traditional approach. Based on these observations, an agile approach seems to support learning, provide a valuable practical experience and produce useable software within an academic environment.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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