Software engineering for big data projects: Domains, methodologies and gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Big data has become the new buzzword in the information and communication technology industry. Researchers and major corporations are looking into big data applications to extract the maximum value from the data available to them. However, developing and maintaining stable and scalable big data applications is still a distant milestone. Objective: To look at existing research on how software engineering concepts, namely the phases of the software development project life cycle (SDPLC), can help build better big data application projects. Method: A literature survey was performed. A manual search covered papers returned by search engines resulting in approximately 2,000 papers being searched and 170 papers selected for review. Results: The search results helped in identifying data rich application projects that have the potential to utilize big data successfully. The review helped in exploring SDPLC phases in the context of big data applications and performing a gap analysis of the phases that have yet to see detailed research efforts but deserve attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".