{"id":"W2125279207","doi":"10.1109/icsm.2015.7332457","title":"Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"","topic":"Software Engineering Research","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":149,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"École de Technologie Supérieure; Université de Montréal; University of Waterloo","funders":"","keywords":"Code review; Computer science; Software quality; Quality (philosophy); Code (set theory); Software bug; Software engineering; Process (computing); Source code; KPI-driven code analysis; Empirical research; Static program analysis; Software inspection; Set (abstract data type); Software development; Software; Programming language","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.08487585,0.000548023,0.001331731,0.00489249,0.001735333,0.004750991,0.001486778,0.001891644,0.003765551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.3887897,0.000638459,0.000926068,0.003855171,0.003178195,0.00672141,0.003364025,0.001364604,0.00088667],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001563225,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002523131,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002117777,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002708992,"domain_scores_codex":[0.8720093,0.07499455,0.009861512,0.009546622,0.0297743,0.003813684],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.3259639,0.4920008,0.1141109,0.02258758,0.03530079,0.0100361],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":"evaluation","domain_candidate":"evaluation","domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0004264533,0.0003232576,0.8890349,0.0005465894,0.0004638013,0.0002048581,0.02697523,0.0002792622,0.0007830325,0.0008402374,0.001275468,0.07884686],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001052949,0.0006545314,0.9637469,0.0004650004,0.0002362287,0.000562522,0.01868034,0.003271927,0.001137182,0.003869693,0.007161692,0.0001085758],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.969946,0.002191229,0.01502075,0.003365429,0.0001380157,0.0003976275,0.0002217029,0.0001724583,0.008546804],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9967473,0.0002174543,0.001689007,0.0003571582,0.00007768384,0.0001813402,0.0001034669,0.00004667874,0.0005799211],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9151242,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4488718,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.1181563120664879,"score_gpt":0.3832507134207964,"score_spread":0.2650944013543085,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}