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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a software system evolves, the system's codebase constantly changes, making it difficult for developers to answer such questions as who is knowledgeable about particular parts of the code or who needs to know about changes made. In this article, we show that an externalized model of a developer's individual knowledge of code can make it easier for developers to answer such questions. We introduce a degree-of-knowledge model that computes automatically, for each source-code element in a codebase, a real value that represents a developer's knowledge of that element based on a developer's authorship and interaction data. We present evidence that shows that both authorship and interaction data of the code are important in characterizing a developer's knowledge of code. We report on the usage of our model in case studies on expert finding, knowledge transfer, and identifying changes of interest. We show that our model improves upon an existing expertise-finding approach and can accurately identify changes for which a developer should likely be aware. We discuss how our model may provide a starting point for knowledge transfer but that more refinement is needed. Finally, we discuss the robustness of the model across multiple development sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it