MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396528502 · doi:10.1109/cmpsac.2004.1342660

Optimizing the planning and executing of software independent verification and validation (IV&V) in mature organizations

2004· article· en· W2396528502 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapability Maturity Model IntegrationLeanCMMIVerification and validationComputer scienceSoftware qualityCapability Maturity ModelSoftware engineeringMaturity (psychological)SoftwareProcess (computing)Reliability (semiconductor)Quality (philosophy)Process managementSoftware development processSoftware developmentEngineeringOperating systemOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To an organization involved in the construction of mission critical software, the safety and reliability of critical systems including their software is of utmost importance. The use of an independent group to provide verification and validation (IV&V) is intended to improve the quality of the software products. We seek to optimize the planning and execution of IV&V activities upon organizations that are already assessed with a certain level of process maturity, such as proposed by the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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