Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many tools available today to help software engineers search in source code systems. It is often the case, however, that there is a gap between what people really want to find and the actual query strings they specify. This is because a concept in a software system may be represented by many different terms, while the same term may have different meanings in different places. Therefore, software engineers often have to guess as they specify a search, and often have to repeatedly search before finding what they want. To alleviate the search problem, this thesis describes a study of what we call intelligent search techniques as implemented in a software exploration environment, whose purpose is to facilitate software maintenance. We propose to utilize some information retrieval techniques to automatically apply transformations to the query strings. The thesis first introduces the intelligent search techniques used in our study, including abbreviation concatenation and abbreviation expansion. Then it describes in detail the rating algorithms used to evaluate the query results' similarity to the original query strings. Next, we describe a series of experiments we conducted to assess the effectiveness of both the intelligent search methods and our rating algorithms. Finally, we describe how we use the analysis of the experimental results to recommend an effective combination of searching techniques for software maintenance, as well as to guide our future research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".