MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160708296 · doi:10.1109/ms.2007.155

A Software Chasm: Software Engineering and Scientific Computing

2007· article· en· W2160708296 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

VenueIEEE Software · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial software engineeringSoftware Engineering Process GroupSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware requirementsSoftware constructionSoftware systemSoftwareSoftware peer reviewComputer sciencePersonal software processSoftware deploymentEngineering managementSystems engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some time ago, a chasm opened between the scientific-computing community and the software engineering community. Originally, computing meant scientific computing. Today, science and engineering applications are at the heart of software systems such as environmental monitoring systems, rocket guidance systems, safety studies for nuclear stations, and fuel injection systems. Failures of such health-, mission-, or safety-related systems have served as examples to promote the use of software engineering best practices. Yet, the bulk of the software engineering community's research is on anything but scientific-application software. This chasm has many possible causes. In this article, we look at the impact of one particular contributor in industry.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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