Continuous Data-driven Software Engineering - Towards a Research Agenda
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
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.414 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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