MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244949983 · doi:10.1109/icse.2000.870428

A replicated assessment and comparison of common software cost modeling techniques

2002· article· en· W4244949983 on OpenAlexaff
L.C. Briand, T. Langley, I. Wieczorek

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReputationSoftware qualitySoftwareQuality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)Software quality controlSoftware metricOrder (exchange)Product (mathematics)Software quality analystSoftware sizingReliability engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware constructionBusinessEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delivering a software product on time, within budget, and to an agreed level of quality is a critical concern for many software organizations. Underestimating software costs can have detrimental effects on the quality of the delivered software and thus on a company's business reputation and competitiveness. On the other hand, overestimation of software cost can result in missed opportunities to funds in other projects. In response to industry demand, a myriad of estimation techniques has been proposed during the last three decades. In order to assess the suitability of a technique from a diverse selection, its performance and relative merits must be compared.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.310
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New MillenniumSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207