MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cognitive and Machine Learning-Based Software Development Paradigm Supported by Context

2021· preprint· en· W3127959686 on OpenAlexaff
Glaucia Melo, Paulo Alencar, Donald Cowan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Software developmentHuman–computer interactionSoftwareProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceKnowledge managementSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in the use of cognitive and machine learning (ML) enabled systems fuel the quest for novel approaches and tools to support software developers in executing their tasks. First, as software development is a complex and dynamic activity, these tasks are highly dependent on the characteristics of the software project and its context, and developers need comprehensive support in terms of information and guidance based on the task context. Second, there is a lack of methods based on conversational-guided agents that consider cognitive aspects such as paying attention and remembering. Third, there is also a lack of techniques that make use of historical implicit or tacit data to infer new knowledge about the project tasks such as related tasks, task experts, relevant information needed for task completion and warnings, and navigation aspects of the process such as what tasks to perform next and optimal task sequencing. Based on these challenges, this paper introduces a novel paradigm for human-machine software support based on context, cognitive assistance, and machine learning, and briefly describes ongoing research activities to realize this paradigm. The research takes advantage of the synergy among emergent methods provided in context-aware software processes, cognitive computing such as chatbots, and machine learning such as recommendation systems. These novel paradigms have the potential to transform the way software development currently occurs by allowing developers to receive valuable information and guidance in real-time while they are participating in projects.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207