MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979786964 · doi:10.1109/scam.2010.22

Estimating the Optimal Number of Latent Concepts in Source Code Analysis

2010· article· en· W1979786964 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Grant, James R. Cordy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationComputer scienceSource codeLatent variableCode (set theory)Topic modelLatent semantic analysisSoftwareNatural language processingData miningArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal number of latent topics required to model the most accurate latent substructure for a source code corpus is an open question in source code analysis. Most estimates about the number of latent topics that exist in a software corpus are based on the assumption that the data is similar to natural language, but there is little empirical evidence to support this. In order to help determine the appropriate number of topics needed to accurately represent the source code, we generate a series of Latent Dirichlet Allocation models with varying topic counts. We use a heuristic to evaluate the ability of the model to identify related source code blocks, and demonstrate the consequences of choosing too few or too many latent topics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207