MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255149924 · doi:10.1109/mc.2021.3087936

Shoehorning

2021· article· en· W4255149924 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpgradeComputer scienceSystem requirementsProduct (mathematics)Systems engineeringProcurementRequirements engineeringSoftware engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Requirements managementSystem requirements specificationSoftwareEngineeringBusinessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we discuss the concept of shoehorning system requirements into (possibly) poor solutions. Some examples are provided that demonstrate that shoehorning may result in inadequate or even catastrophic system solutions. The design of a new system, a significant upgrade of an existing system, or the procurement of an external system begins (in most cases) with the establishment of what the system is supposed to accomplish, that is, requirements. These requirements spell out how the system is expected to perform if and when it is implemented. Because of the importance of en-suring that the system will perform the required tasks, a new discipline called requirements engineering has been established, which includes the developments of require-ments for systems and the oversight that requirements are implemented to perform the tasks envisioned for the system. In this discussion, the term system can mean a physical product, a software product, an organizational new structure, and so on.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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