MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005053504 · doi:10.1145/1124706.1121475

Teaching requirements engineering to an unsuspecting audience

2006· article· en· W3005053504 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

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Class (philosophy)Computer scienceRequirements engineeringMathematics educationSoftwareSoftware engineeringPsychologyProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of a Software Engineer's most important skills is the ability to define the scope of the problem and ascertain the requirements from general and vague specifications. Teaching this skill is known to be difficult and is made more complex because students are conditioned to expect that this portion of programming projects is already complete. This paper reports on experience in teaching a second year computer science class which exposed the need for requirements engineering and gave students an opportunity to engage in the activity. We found that the student response was bimodal, and while some students met the challenge, more felt betrayed by the experience. We conclude that students gained the requisite knowledge using this approach but that a less traumatic approach may produce better results.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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