Intertemporal Choice: Decision Making and Time in Software Engineering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When making choices in software projects, engineers and other stakeholders engage in decision making that involves uncertain future outcomes. The concept of 'intertemporal choice' describes choices between outcomes at different times in the future. Short-sighted decisions with far-reaching effects are a long-standing cause of concern in the software profession. Common models to support decisions in software projects use concepts such as expected utility and discount factors to quantify future value and enable trade-off decisions. However, a growing body of behavioral research shows that these normative models do not adequately describe how people actually make choices. Our objective is to understand how developers and stakeholders actually take trade-off decisions during software projects that involve current and future benefits, and to identify the human and cooperative factors that influence them. This requires empirical research on decision making in SE with a focus on trade-offs across time. To support such research, this paper reports on a systematic literature review that aimed to identify whether the intersection of these concepts has been acknowledged and addressed. We discuss the assumptions about decision makers that underpin existing research and analyze how the role of time has been characterized in the study of decision making in SE. Based on this review, the paper begins to develop principles for a descriptive framework to characterize intertemporal choices in empirical and behavioral software engineering research.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it