MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471536124 · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-887-1

Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications

2009· book· en· W2471536124 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringManagement science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements engineering is the process of discovering the purpose and implicit needs of a software system that will be developed and making explicit, complete, and non ambiguous their specification. Its relevance is based in that omission or mistakes generated during this phase and corrected in later phases of a system development lifecycle, will cause cost overruns and delays to the project, as well as incomplete software. This chapter, by using a conceptual research approach, reviews the literature for developing a review of types of requirements, and the processes, activities, and techniques used. Analysis and synthesis of such findings permit to posit a generic requirements engineering process. Implications, trends, and challenges are then reported. While its execution is being mandatory in most SDLCs, it is done partially. Furthermore, the emergence of advanced services-oriented technologies suggests further research for identifying what of the present knowledge is useful and what is needed. This research is an initial effort to synthesize accumulated knowledge.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.277 · 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