MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397063921 · doi:10.1145/2896825.2896838

Understanding quality requirements in the context of big data systems

2016· article· en· W2397063921 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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Quality (philosophy)Data qualityData scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Context (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Data modelingSoftware engineeringData miningEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the domain of big data is anticipated to affect many aspects of human endeavour, there are numerous challenges in building big data applications among which is how to address big data characteristics in quality requirements. In this paper, we propose a novel, unified, approach for specifying big data characteristics (e.g., velocity of data arrival) in quality requirements (i.e., those requirements specifying attributes such as performance, reliability, availability, security, etc.). Several examples are given to illustrate the integrated specifications. As this is early work, further experimentation is needed in different big data situations and quality requirements and, beyond that, in a variety of project settings.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.746
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.320 · 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