MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240798600 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652210

Deriving pertinent systems requirements : a methodology

2021· preprint· en· W4240798600 on OpenAlexafffund
Swapan Sikdar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceStructuringRequirements engineeringNon-functional requirementBusiness requirementsSet (abstract data type)Requirements managementRequirements elicitationManagement scienceVocabularyFuzzy setFuzzy logicRequirements analysisRequirementRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementSystems engineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness processSoftware developmentSoftwareEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor understanding of needs results in incompletely captured requirements and causes project failures. Analysts and developers by training, practice preoccupation and lacking suitable methodologies are ill equipped to capture various dimensions of requirements. In early stages needs are vaguely expressed. They have to be extracted and reasoned with stakeholders using relevant vocabulary. Business reality limits time at stakeholders' disposal to participate in requirements development. Methodologies that are more workable are required. Working with early stage goal oriented concepts from Goal Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) and fuzzy set theory based value aggregation, this thesis proposes a methodology to develop and select pertinent requirements. We use GORE concepts for identifying requirements and fuzzy aggregation to select alternatives. Use of fuzzy set theory and Ordered Weighted Aggregation (OWA) operators allows quantitative structuring of early stage decision problem consistent with human thinking and reasoning. The methodology is illustrated via two case studies.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207