MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147243633 · doi:10.5539/cis.v3n2p145

Incorporating Generalized Modified Weibull TEF in to Software Reliability Growth Model and Analysis of Optimal Release Policy

2010· article· en· W2147243633 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware qualityWeibull distributionReliability engineeringSoftware release life cycleReliability (semiconductor)Context (archaeology)SoftwareSoftware reliability testingProcess (computing)Software developmentStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software reliability is generally a key factor in software quality. Reliability is an essential ingredient in customer satisfaction. In software development process reliability conveys the information to managers to access the testing effort and time at which software release into the market. Large numbers of papers are published in this context. In this paper we proposed a software reliability growth model with generalized modified weibull testing effort. Performance application of proposed model is demonstrated through real datasets. The experimental results shown that the model gives an excellent performance compared to other models. We also discuss the optimal release time based on reliability requirement and cost criteria.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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