MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931878052 · doi:10.1109/issre.2000.885858

Thresholds for object-oriented measures

2002· article· en· W1931878052 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
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsCistel Technology (Canada)National Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Computer scienceFault (geology)CognitionTest suiteObject-oriented programmingArtificial intelligenceReliability engineeringTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningTest casePsychologyProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical application of object oriented measures is to predict which classes are likely to contain a fault. This is contended to be meaningful because object oriented measures are believed to be indicators of psychological complexity, and classes that are more complex are likely to be faulty. Recently, a cognitive theory was proposed suggesting that there are threshold effects for many object oriented measures. This means that object oriented classes are easy to understand as long as their complexity is below a threshold. Above that threshold their understandability decreases rapidly, leading to an increased probability of a fault. This occurs, according to the theory, due to an overflow of short-term human memory. If this theory is confirmed, then it would provide a mechanism that would explain the introduction of faults into object oriented systems, and would also provide some practical guidance on how to design object oriented programs. The authors empirically test this theory on two C++ telecommunications systems. They test for threshold effects in a subset of the Chidamber and Kemerer (CK) suite of measures (S. Chidamber and C. Kemerer, 1994). The dependent variable was the incidence of faults that lead to field failures. The results indicate that there are no threshold effects for any of the measures studied. This means that there is no value for the studied CK measures where the fault-proneness changes from being steady to rapidly increasing. The results are consistent across the two systems. Therefore, we can provide no support to the posited cognitive theory.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207