MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983565008 · doi:10.5555/2486788.2487076

1st international workshop on release engineering (RELENG 2013)

2013· article· en· W1983565008 on OpenAlexaff
Bram Adams, Stephany Bellomo, Christian Bird, Foutse Khomh, Kim Moir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Software Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftwareProduct (mathematics)Field (mathematics)World Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Release engineering deals with all activities in between regular development and actual usage of a software product by the end user, i.e., integration, build, test execution, packaging and delivery of software. Although research on this topic goes back for decades, the increasing heterogeneity and variability of software products along with the recent trend to reduce the release cycle to days or even hours starts to question some of the common beliefs and practices of the field. For example, a project like Mozilla Firefox releases every 6 weeks, generating updates for dozens of existing Firefox versions on 5 desktop, 2 mobile and 3 mobile desktop platforms, each of which for more than 80 locales. In this context, the International Workshop on Release Engineering (RELENG) aims to provide a highly interactive forum for researchers and practitioners to address the challenges of, find solutions for and share experiences with release engineering, and to build connections between the various communities.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.043

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Software EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207