MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148060794 · doi:10.1145/1985793.1985963

The American law institute's principles on software contracts and their ramifications for software engineering research (NIER track)

2011· article· en· W2148060794 on OpenAlex
James Williams, Jens H. Weber-Jahnke

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
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware walkthroughSoftwareSocial software engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware requirementsLiabilitySoftware engineeringTrack (disk drive)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Personal software processSoftware Engineering Process GroupSoftware constructionLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Law Institute has recently published principles of software contracts that may have profound impact on changing the software industry. One of the principles implies a nondisclaimable liability of software vendors for any hidden material defects. In this paper, we describe the new principle, first from a legal and then from a software engineering point of view. We point out potential ramifications and research directions for the software engineering community.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207