MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760143622 · doi:10.1109/rew.2017.49

Towards a Tool to Help Exploring Existing Non-functional Requirements Solution Patterns

2017· article· en· W2760143622 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-functional requirementComputer scienceRequirements elicitationFunctional requirementRequirements engineeringProcess (computing)Requirements managementSoftware engineeringRequirementIdentification (biology)Requirements analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringQuality (philosophy)Software requirements specificationSoftwareSoftware developmentEngineeringSoftware designSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements Engineering play a crucial role during the software development process. Many works have pointed out that Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are currently more important than Functional Requirements. NFRs can be very complicated to understand due to its diversity and subjective nature. The NDR Framework has been proposed to fill some of the existing gaps to facilitate NFR elicitation and modeling. In this paper, we introduce a tool to help to explore stored knowledge for delivering solutions to implement quality requirements. Preliminary search mechanisms are provided in this tool to facilitate the identification of possible solutions to an NFR and its related consequences to other solutions and/or other NFRs.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.044 · 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