MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adopting Open-Source Software Components in Information Systems Development Projects: An Analysis of Software Quality and Design Principles

2025· article· W7127080323 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsEarl Haig Secondary SchoolYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Software developmentSoftware qualitySoftware development processSoftware designInformation systemSoftwareProcess (computing)Design elements and principles

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates possible associations between the adoption of Open-Source Software (OSS) used as components of information systems (IS), OSS quality, design principles that promote OSS, and the improvement in the IS development process. Findings from a survey of 70 information technology professionals show that their assessment of OSS quality and of the improvement in the IS development process depends on the design principles they hold. Results also indicate that respondents from organizations that have adopted OSS tend to hold design principles that promote OSS and to report higher levels for several OSS quality attributes and significant improvements in the IS development process. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0030.003
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpen Source Software InnovationsFrench-language works237,207