Contextual risk analysis for interview design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interviews with stakeholders can be a useful method for identifying user needs and establishing requirements. However, interviews are also problematic. They are time consuming and may result in insufficient, irrelevant or invalid data. Our goal is to re-examine the methodology of interview design, to determine how various contextual factors affect the success of interviews in requirements engineering. We present a case study of a Web conferencing system used by a support group for spousal caregivers of people with dementia. Two sets of interviews were conducted to identify requirements for a new version of the system. Both sets of interviews had the same information elicitation goals, but each used different interview tactics. A comparison of the participants' responses to each format offers insights into the relationship between the interview context and the relative success of each interview technique for eliciting the desired information. As a result of what we learned, we propose a framework to help analysts design interviews and chose tactics based on the context of the elicitation process. We call this the contextual risk analysis framework.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it