Usable results from the field of API usability: A systematic mapping and further analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern software development often involves the use of complex, reusable components called Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Developers use APIs to complete tasks they could not otherwise accomplish in a reasonable time. These components are now vital to mainstream software development. But as APIs have become more important, understanding how to make them more usable is becoming a significant research question. To assess the current state of research in the field, we conducted a systematic mapping. A total of 28 papers were reviewed and categorized based on their research type and on the evaluation method employed by its authors. We extended the analysis of a subset of the papers we reviewed beyond the usual limits of a systematic map in order to more closely examine details of their evaluations - such as their structure and validity - and to summarize their recommendations. Based on these results, common problems in the field are discussed and future research directions are suggested.
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 | 0.080 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.084 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".