Finding an effective classification technique to develop a software team composition model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ineffective software team composition has become recognized as a prominent aspect of software project failures. Reports from results extracted from different theoretical personality models have produced contradicting fits, validity challenges, and missing guidance during software development personnel selection. It is also believed that the technique/s used while developing a model can impact the overall results. Thus, this study aims to (1) discover an effective classification technique to solve the problem and (2) develop a model for composition of the software development team. The model developed was composed of 3 predictors: team role, personality types, and gender variables; it also contained 1 outcome: team performance variable. The techniques used for model development were logistic regression, decision tree, and rough sets theory (RST). Higher prediction accuracy and reduced pattern complexity were the 2 parameters for selecting the effective technique. Based on the results, the Johnson algorithm (JA) of RST appeared to be an effective technique for a team composition model. The study has proposed a set of 24 decision rules for finding effective team members. These rules involve gender classification to highlight the appropriate personality profile for software developers. In the end, this study concludes that selecting an appropriate classification technique is one of the most important factors in developing effective models.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".