MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783945405 · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258521

Towards a big data requirements engineering artefact model in the context of big data software development projects: Poster extended abstract

2017· article· en· W2783945405 on OpenAlexaff
Darlan Arruda, Nazim H. Madhavji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Data modelingSoftware engineeringSoftwareSoftware developmentDevelopment (topology)Data scienceSystems engineeringData miningEngineeringProgramming languageGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe our ongoing research aimed at defining a Requirements Engineering Artefact Model (REAM) in the context of Big Data software applications. This model aims to provide a “big picture” of the Requirements Engineering work products created and used in Big Data software development projects. REAM are important tools that can be used as references for the definition of domain-specific RE models, system life-cycle processes and artefact-centered processes, currently bereft in the Big Data 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0090.003
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.077 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207