Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software clones are identical or similar pieces of code or design. Clones are known to be closely related to various issues on software engineering, such as software quality, complexity, architecture, refactoring, evolution, licensing, plagiarism, and so on. Various characteristics of software systems can be uncovered through the clone analysis, and system restructuring can be performed by merging clones. The purpose of this workshop is to continue to solidify and give shape to this research/application area and community. More specifically, the goals are to bring together researchers and practitioners from around the world to evaluate the current state of research and applications, discuss common problems, discover new opportunities for collaboration, exchange ideas, and envision new areas of research and applications. This workshop should be highly relevant to industrial participants as well as academic researchers. This is because software clones are now closely related to many issues in software practice such as software quality, architecture design, maintenance, and so on. In this, the 4th international clone workshop, we will intensively discuss on broader topics of software clones.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".