MétaCan
ENFR
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

Export CSVExport JSONAPI query

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
→
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Software Engineering Research
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

3,468 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
3,468 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 2 of 70

Labels cover 10 of 3,468 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 3,468 of 3,468 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affunlabeled
Reducing the effort of bug report triage
John Anvik, Gail C. Murphy
2011· article· en· ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
281
citations
affunlabeled
On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software
Jiang Zheng, Laurie Williams, Nachiappan Nagappan, Will Snipes, J.P. Hudepohl, Mladen A. Vouk
2006· article· en· IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
281
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub
Eirini Kalliamvakou, Georgios Gousios, Kelly Blincoe, Leif Singer, Daniel M. Germán, Daniela Damian
2015· article· en· Empirical Software Engineering· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
270
citations
affunlabeled
The NiCad Clone Detector
James R. Cordy, Chanchal K. Roy
2011· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
252
citations
affunlabeled
Live API documentation
Siddharth Subramanian, Laura Inozemtseva, Reid Holmes
2014· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
248
citations
affunlabeled
Coping with an open bug repository
John Anvik, Lyndon Hiew, Gail C. Murphy
2005· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
248
citations
affunlabeled
Personalized defect prediction
Tian Jiang, Lin Tan, Sunghun Kim
2013· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
243
citations
affunlabeled
Do Crosscutting Concerns Cause Defects?
Marc Eaddy, Thomas Zimmermann, Kaitlin Duck Sherwood, Vedant Garg, Gail C. Murphy, Nachiappan Nagappan +1 more
2008· article· en· IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
238
citations
afffundunlabeled
Open source software peer review practices
Peter C. Rigby, Daniel M. Germán, Margaret‐Anne Storey
2008· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
235
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Bug characteristics in open source software
Lin Tan, Chen Liu, LI Zhen-min, Xuanhui Wang, Yuanyuan Zhou, ChengXiang Zhai
2013· article· en· Empirical Software Engineering· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
232
citations
afffundunlabeled
Tracking Code Clones in Evolving Software
Ekwa Duala-Ekoko, Martin P. Robillard
2007· article· en· Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
216
citations
affunlabeled
Representing concerns in source code
Martin P. Robillard, Gail C. Murphy
2007· article· en· ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
215
citations
affunlabeled
Information needs in bug reports
Silvia Breu, Rahul Premraj, Jonathan Sillito, Thomas Zimmermann
2010· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
203
citations
afffundunlabeled
Summarizing software artifacts
Sarah Rastkar, Gail C. Murphy, Gabriel Murray
2010· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
197
citations
← previousnext →

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About