ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPER LEARNING RESOURCES by
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Developer documentation helps developers learn frameworks and libraries, yet developing and maintaining accurate documentation require considerable effort and resources.Contributors who work on developer documentation need to at least take into account the project's code and the support needs of users.Although related, the documentation, the code, and the support needs evolve and are not always synchronized: for example, new features in the code are not always documented and questions repeatedly asked by users on support channels such as mailing lists may not be addressed by the documentation.Our thesis is that by studying how the relationships between documentation, code, and users' support needs are created and maintained, we can identify documentation improvements and automatically recommend some of these improvements to contributors.In this dissertation, we ( 1) studied the perspective of documentation contributors by interviewing open source contributors and users, (2) developed a technique that automatically generates the model of documentation, code, and users' support needs, (3) devised a technique that recovers fine-grained traceability links between the learning resources and the code, (4) investigated strategies to infer high-level documentation structures based on the traceability links, and (5) devised a recommendation system that uses the traceability links and the high-level documentation structures to suggest adaptive changes to the documentation when the underlying code evolves.i agement throughout the journey that led to this thesis.My supervisor, Martin, has always been ready to review my work quickly and to provide insightful advice, even for the 100th revision of a paper when separated by multiple timezones, a sabbatical, and countless attention-seeking tasks.He never stopped at "good enough" and always raised the bar which led to research work that I am particularly proud of.Thank you Martin.It has been a great pleasure to work with my friend and mentor at IBM Research, Harold.I learned a lot from our research discussions, from his kindness too, and I thank him for his advice in the toughest moments.Conducting a qualitative study and interviewing real people on the phone for the first time can be scary if you are used to quantitative studies and totally afraid to pick up the phone in general.I thank Rachel for helping me improve my interviewing techniques and analysis skills, and for giving me confidence in the qualitative work I was doing.I am thankful to the contributors of open source projects, senior software engineers, and technical writers who accepted to squeeze an interview with me in their busy schedule.I never expected to be part of a family barbecue (over the phone), to speak with a groom a day after his wedding or to hear so many war stories from technical writers.What I learned from these interviews will be useful for the rest of my career.iii My colleagues, Annie, David, Ekwa, and Tristan, were always available to bounce ideas with me and review my papers
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».