Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Development Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 3rd workshop on Software Development Governance --- SDG 2010. Participants in this workshop deal with a contemporary topic in software development organizations that is better aligning of the projects to the organization goals thus reducing risk and increase value. Software Development Governance is the key meeting point between software development processes and the business and regulatory context in which these processes must operate. Software organizations need to perform in a complex and demanding environment, and they are required to deliver more value in an effective and efficient manner while controlling the operational risks and meeting regulations. Studies show that effective governance is one of the key mechanisms by which organizations can guarantee meeting their business goals. Implementing governance in software projects enhances the ability to deal with risks and supports consistent decision making. These decisions are part of the development process e.g., business and organizational decisions that impact the technical decisions concerned with the product architecture and the product quality. This year we combine SDG with the ICSE workshop on Leadership and Management in Software Architecture (LMSA) since both workshops deal with decisions that are part of the development process e.g., business and organizational decisions that impact the technical decisions concerned with the product architecture and the product quality. We join themes and goals thus providing an extended stage to explore the relationship between business goals, organizational structure, and software development governance and the ways effective technical practices can be achieved given a particular set of goals and a particular organizational structure.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.009 |
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".