MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quality, Improvement and Measurements in High Risk Software

2011· book-chapter· en· W4244300796 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edgardo Palza Vargas

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapability Maturity Model IntegrationCapability Maturity ModelQuality (philosophy)Software measurementSoftware engineeringComputer scienceSoftware qualitySystems engineeringVerification and validationSoftware quality controlSoftwareProcess (computing)EngineeringProcess managementSoftware developmentSoftware development processOperations managementOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aim to improve quality in software engineering projects by introducing Verification and Validation (V&V) best practices in terms of process, artifacts, and quality performance indicators. We present a Quality Measurement Management Tool (QMT) in order to support quality activities and process. This tool is based on a measurement meta-model repository for collecting, storing, analyzing and reporting measurement data. It is important to note that the proposed QMT supports the IEEE Standard 1012 for Software Verification and Validation (management, acquisition, supply, development, operation, and maintenance), as well as measurement information needs to Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) processes and products requirements. Our repository is generic, flexible, and integrated, supporting a dynamic measurement system. It was originally designed to support Ericsson Research Canada’s business information needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207