MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250537654 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14661051

TDD Dynamics: Understanding the Impact of Test-Driven Development on Software Quality and Productivity

2021· preprint· en· W4250537654 on OpenAlexaff
Yahha Rafique

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentTest-driven developmentEmpirical researchComputer scienceExtreme programmingProcess managementModerationQuality (philosophy)SoftwareSoftware developmentSystems engineeringEngineeringSoftware development processSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test-Driven Development (TDD) is one of the cornerstone practices of the Extreme Programming agile methodology. Today, despite the large scale adoption of TDD in industry, including large software firms such as Microsoft and IBM, its usefulness with regard to the quality and productivity constructs it still under question. Empirical Research has failed to produce conclusive results; all possible results have been reported for both constructs. This research adopts non-empirical measures to gain a deeper understanding of TDD. A two-phased approach has been undertaken towards the goal. The first phase involves conducting a meta-analysis of past empirical research. The meta-analysis quantitatively combines the results of individual empirical studies and identifies moderator variables that could potentially govern the performance of TDD. The second phase of the approach involves the construction of a simulation model of a TDD-based development process. The presented model further analyzes the impact of changes in moderator variables.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207