Measurement of the Functional Size of Web Analytics Implementation: A COSMIC-Based Case Study Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To fully leverage Google Analytics and derive actionable insights, web analytics practitioners must go beyond standard implementation and customize the setup for specific functional requirements, which involves additional web development efforts. Previous studies have not provided solutions for estimating web analytics development efforts, and practitioners must rely on ad hoc practices for time and budget estimation. This study presents a COSMIC-based measurement framework to measure the functional size of Google Analytics implementations, including two examples. Next, a set of 50 web analytics projects were sized in COSMIC Function Points and used as inputs to various machine learning (ML) effort estimation models. A comparison of predicted effort values with actual values indicated that Linear Regression, Extra Trees, and Random Forest ML models performed well in terms of low Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), high Testing Accuracy, and strong Standard Accuracy (SA) scores. These results demonstrate the feasibility of applying functional size for web analytics and its usefulness in predicting web analytics project efforts. This study contributes to enhancing rigor in web analytics project management, thereby enabling more effective resource planning and allocation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".