MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526402655 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2015.2443049

A Hybrid eBusiness Software Metrics Framework for Decision Making in Cloud Computing Environment

2015· article· en· W2526402655 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Zhao, Guodong Nian, Hai Jin, Laurence T. Yang, Yajun Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware metricElectronic businessSoftware developmentSoftware qualityBusiness modelBusinessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing high-quality software is essential for eBusiness organizations to cope with drastic market competition. With the development of cloud computing technologies, eBusiness systems and applications pay more attention to open endedness. In a cloud computing environment, eBusiness systems have the ability to provide information technology resources on demand. Traditional software metric methods in distributed systems and applications are technical and project driven, making the market demand and internal practical operation not perfectly balanced within a cloud-computing-based eBusiness corporation. To address this issue, this paper presents a hybrid framework based on the goal/question/metric paradigm to evaluate the quality and efficiency of previous software products, projects, and development organizations in a cloud computing environment. In our approach, to support decision making at the project and organization levels, three angular metrics are used, i.e., project metrics, product metrics, and organization metrics. Furthermore, an improved radial-basis-function-based model is also provided to manage existing projects and design new projects. Experimental results on a well-known eBusiness organization show that the proposed framework is effective, efficient, and operational. Moreover, using the described decision-making algorithm, the predicted data are very close to actual results on the software cost, the fault rate, the development workload, etc., which are greatly helpful in achieving high-quality software.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Systems JournalSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207