MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399895443 · doi:10.18280/ria.380305

Roadmap Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Engineering Method

2024· article· en· W4399895443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandfreni Sandfreni, Eko K. Budiardjo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFakultas Ilmu Komputer, Universitas Indonesia
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of AI-based software have the potential to reshape traditional software development paradigms.Consequently, this study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) within the field of AI Engineering to identify the unique challenges in software engineering for AI-based systems, which are transforming traditional software development paradigms.The scope of the SLR includes literature from academic journals and conference proceedings published between 2018 and 2023, selected through a rigorous process.The methodology involved using specific search keywords across databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with a stringent application of Kitchenham's inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure a focused and relevant review.This review provides a consolidated summary of diverse research endeavors addressing challenges, issues, and methodologies relevant to AI-based software development.Highlighted topics encompass challenges in requirements engineering for AI-intensive system development, responsible software development (responsible AI), the formulation of a software engineering roadmap for responsible AI, the application of TrustOps as a risk management methodology in AI system development, the necessity of incorporating software engineering methods in AI-based systems, as well as studies exploring requirements engineering practices, AI-intensive system development, and the utilization of tools in machine learning model development.Key findings include the importance of recognizing ethical requirements in AI development, the role of risk management and ethical attributes, and the challenges of connecting requirements between software developers, data scientists, and machine learning specialists.This research provides valuable insights for practitioners and researchers involved in developing AI-based software to overcome existing challenges and apply appropriate methods in the development process.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.007

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicE-commerce and Technology InnovationsFrench-language works237,207