A measurement framework for software product maturity assessment
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
Abstract The need to ensure the quality of software is growing in importance on a daily basis due to the growing role of software in critical products and application areas, such as defense, aerospace, aviation, and medicine. To meet this need, many organizations use the Capability Maturity Model Integration process model to assess and improve software development processes. This paper proposes a framework for measuring software product maturity as an indicator of product quality. The proposed framework consists of two parts: a reference model and an assessment method. The reference model provides a platform for gathering product quality indicators as evidence of product capability, which reflects the product's maturity. The quality indicators are then used to assess the product maturity level. The assessment method utilizes standard steps for assessing product maturity that are reflected in the degree of the product's conformance with the relevant quality attributes defined and agreed upon by the product's stakeholders. The proposed framework enables measuring the quality of the product from the developers' and the users' perspective. The proposed maturity model and the assessment method can help software organizations and software clients ensure that software products meet the appropriate quality levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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