Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software design has been considered an integral part of software development for over fifty years. Over this time, software developers have improved how software systems are designed and have determined which designs lead to different desired characteristics in the systems built. In parallel, software engineering researchers have studied the processes software developers use to design and have considered many aspects of software design, such as how to represent a design. Given all of the practical experience gained and all of the study about software design, you might expect that there is a sophisticated common understanding about what software design is and is not. Unfortunately, such a common understanding is not evident in the literature. To investigate how software design is perceived, we conducted an interview study involving 16 participants representing both academia and industry. Our analysis of the interview transcripts reveals five main themes: 1) design cuts across multiple development phases and involves multiple people, 2) design involved decision making, 3) design is impacted by context, 4) design involves communication and 5) good design requires experience. We discuss the implications of these themes and describe what can be done to reach a more commonly shared idea of what design represents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".