Convertibility of function points to COSMIC-FPP: identification and analysis fo functional outliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COSMIC-FFP (ISO 19761) represents the second generation of functional size of the software, based on its ease of understanding and use and it is applicable to various kinds of software applications; this new method has achieved rapidly an ISO recognition as an international standard as well as market acceptance in various countries. Several organizations are therefore interested in using convertibility ratios between COSMICFFP and first generation of functional size measurement (in particular Function Point Analysis – FPA ISO 20926), in order to leverage data from their historical databases of software measures. Previous convertibility studies have indicated that convertibility of FPA to COSMIC-FFP can be simple, with a very good correlation for most MIS projects, but that there are some outliers for which convertibility is less straightforward. This study analyzes a new data set of 14 projects measured with both sizing methods, and for which measurement results are available at the detailed level. The analysis reported here identifies reasons why, for some MIS projects, convertibility is not so straightforward. This analysis also provides lead indicators to identify outliers for convertibility purposes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".