Continuous Data-driven Software Engineering - Towards a Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid pace with which software needs to be built, together with the increasing need to evaluate changes for end users both quantitatively and qualitatively calls for novel software engineering approaches that focus on short release cycles, continuous deployment and delivery, experiment-driven feature development, feedback from users, and rapid tool-assisted feedback to developers. To realize these approaches there is a need for research and innovation with respect to automation and tooling, and furthermore for research into the organizational changes that support flexible data-driven decision-making in the development lifecycle. Most importantly, deep synergies are needed between software engineers, managers, and data scientists. This paper reports on the results of the joint 5th International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering (RCoSE 2019) and the 1st International Workshop on Data-Driven Decisions, Experimentation and Evolution (DDrEE 2019), which focuses on the challenges and potential solutions in the area of continuous data-driven software engineering.
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 | 0.042 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".