Field studies using functional size measurement in building estimation models for software maintenance
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
Abstract Even though a significant number of estimation models have been proposed for development projects, few have been proposed for software maintenance. This paper reports on two field studies carried out on the use of functional size measures in building estimation models for sets of maintenance projects implementing small functional enhancements in existing software. The first field‐study reports on models built with 15 projects making functional enhancements to an internet‐based software program for linguistic applications. The second field study analyses 19 maintenance projects on a single real‐time embedded software program in the defense industry. Both field studies collected functional size measures using version 2.0 of the COSMIC‐FFP functional size measurement method. Also both field studies classified projects into two classes of project difficulty in order to aid identifying subsets of projects with greater homogeneity in the relationship of project effort to functional size. This paper is the first published paper reporting on the use this second generation of functional size‐measurement methods in a maintenance‐estimation context. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.009 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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