An Operational Quality Model of Embedded Software Aligned with ISO 25000
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embedded systems omnipresent in everyday life and industry are mainly composed of hardware and software that must comply with a number of standards and regulations. However, there is no consensus on the quality characteristics and subcharacteristics of embedded software. This article presents the steps for modeling an operational quality model for embedded software aligned with the ISO 25000 series of quality models for traditional computer systems. From a literature review composed of 40 studies on quality modeling for embedded systems and software, 85 of the most frequent quality characteristics and subcharacteristics were first identified, including a subset of 16 referenced or cited in at least 25% of the literature. Next, the design of a quality model for embedded software aligned with the ISO 25000 series was proposed with 13 characteristics and 27 subcharacteristics. The operational aspect of this quality model for embedded software is addressed next through a set of measures and measurement functions from ISO 25000 to aggregate the results of the quantification of the characteristics and subcharacteristics. A survey involving 25 embedded software specialists is presented next to gauge, using Fleiss's Kappa criteria, their agreement with the proposed quality model. Furthermore, the computed importance weights derived from the survey participants’ individual opinions were compared with those derived from an analysis of 40 embedded software studies, bolstering the credibility of the model. The results of this study suggest that the proposed quality model can serve as a framework for evaluating and understanding the quality characteristics across diverse expertise levels. Furthermore, the convergence between the survey and the literature strengthens the model's credibility by anchoring it in both established literature and practitioners’ agreements.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it