Duration Estimation Models for Open Source Software Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For software organizations that rely on Open Source Software (OSS) to develop customer solutions and products, it is essential to accurately estimate how long it will take to deliver the expected functionalities. While OSS is supported by government policies around the world, most of the research on software project estimation has focused on conventional projects with commercial licenses. OSS effort estimation is challenging since OSS participants do not record effort data in OSS repositories. However, OSS data repositories contain dates of the participants’ contributions and these can be used for duration estimation. This study analyses historical data on WordPress and Swift projects to estimate OSS project duration using either commits or lines of code (LOC) as the independent variable. This study proposes first an improved classification of contributors based on the number of active days for each contributor in the development period of a release. For the WordPress and Swift OSS projects environments the results indicate that duration estimation models using the number of commits as the independent variable perform better than those using LOC. The estimation model for full-time contributors gives an estimate of the total duration, while the models with part-time and occasional contributors lead to better estimates of projects duration with both for the commits data and the lines of data.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".