A fuzzy-based multimodel system for reasoning about the number of software defects: Research Articles
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
Software maintenance engineers need tools to support their work. To make such tools relevant, they should provide engineers with quantitative input, as well as the knowledge needed to understand factors influencing maintenance activities. This article proposes an approach leading to multitechnique knowledge extraction and development of a comprehensive meta-model prediction system in the area of corrective maintenance. It dwells on elements of evidence theory and a number of fuzzy-based models. The models are developed using an evolutionary-based approach with different objectives applied to different subsets of data. Evidence theory–based Transferable Belief Model and belief function values assigned to generated models are used for reasoning purposes. The study comprises a detailed case for estimating the number of defects in a medical imaging system. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Int Syst 20: 1093–1115, 2005.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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