MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns for Success in the Adoption and Execution of Feature‐based Product Line Engineering: A Report from Practitioners

2020· article· en· W3090048268 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

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePortfolioSoftware engineeringFeature (linguistics)Software product lineProduct (mathematics)ScheduleQuality (philosophy)AutomationMultitudeSoftwareFeature engineeringNew product developmentKnowledge managementEngineeringSoftware developmentBusinessArtificial intelligenceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Systems and Software Product Line Engineering (PLE) is a general approach to engineer a portfolio of related products in an efficient manner, taking advantage of the products’ similarities while respecting and managing their differences. The approach manages a product portfolio as a single entity, as opposed to a multitude of separate products. Numerous resources describe the organizational benefits associated with incorporating PLE techniques and tools. Feature‐based System and Software Product Line Engineering is a specific form of PLE that is powered by commercial off‐the‐shelf automation, fully defined processes, and a formal language of variation based on features. Many case studies show the efficacy of Feature‐based PLE and the improvements in cost, schedule, and quality that can come with it. In this paper, practitioners from four of world's six largest defense companies highlight their experience with the practices that enable and inhibit success with this powerful engineering discipline.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.265 · 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