MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929703184 · doi:10.29007/qpn7

Towards a Meta-Model for Requirements-Driven Information for Internal Stakeholders

2019· paratext· en· W2929703184 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

VenueEasyChair preprint · 2019
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRequirements managementRequirements analysisContext (archaeology)Requirements engineeringStakeholderProcess managementComputer scienceRequirements elicitationProcess (computing)Non-functional requirementKnowledge managementEngineeringSoftwareSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong>Abstract. [Context & Motivation]</strong> Providing requirements-driven information (e.g., requirements volatility measures, requirements-design coverage information, requirements growth rates, etc.) falls within the realm of the requirements management process. The requirements engineer must derive and present the appropriate requirements information to the right internal stakeholders (IS) in the project. <strong>[Question / Problem]</strong> This process is made complex due to project-related factors such as numerous types of ISs, varying stakeholder concerns with regard to requirements, project sizes, a plethora of software artifacts, and many affected processes. However, there is little guidance in practice as to how these factors come into play together in providing the described information to the ISs. <strong>[Principle ideas/results]</strong> Based on analyzed data from an action research (AR) study we conducted in a large systems project in the rail-automation domain, we propose a meta-model that consists of the main entities and relationships involved in providing requirements-driven information to internal stakeholders within the context of a large systems project. The meta-model consists of five main entities and nine relationships that are further decomposed into three abstraction levels. We validated the meta-model in three phases by researchers and practitioners.  [<strong>Benefits/Contribution]</strong> The meta-model is anticipated to facilitate: (i) control and management of process and resources for providing requirement-driven information to stakeholders and (ii) communication among internal stakeholders.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.175 · 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