MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588475075

Are patches cutting it?: structuring distribution within a JVM using aspects

2005· article· en· W1588475075 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAspectJComputer scienceMaintainabilityJavaAspect-oriented programmingProgramming languageVirtual machineSoftware engineeringExtensibilitySoftwareCode (set theory)Operating systemDistributed computingSet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distribution is hard to modularize. Consequently, its addition to a software system can jeopardize fundamental software engineering principles such as maintainability, understandability and evolva-bility. The distributed Java Virtual Machine (dJVM) is a cluster aware implementation of a JVM, designed specifically for evaluating distrib-uted runtime support algorithms [1]. A prototype implementation of the dJVM relies on a patch file applied to IBM’s Jikes Research Virtual Machine (RVM) [6], introducing distribution code into roughly 55 % of the original 1500 files. An initial experiment using AspectJ [7] to in-troduce this same distribution code as aspects demonstrates the benefits of a modularized ap-proach versus the original patched approach. Pre-liminary results show that aspects can improve the overall quality of the implementation from a software engineering perspective. Specifically, the aspects improved the internal structure of dis-tribution code and made its external interaction explicit. Additionally, consolidating and structur-ing previously scattered code reduced its size by a factor of three.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it