Improving Class Cohesion Measurement: Towards a Novel Approach Using Hierarchical Clustering
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
Class cohesion is considered as one of the most important object-oriented software attributes. High cohesion is, in fact, a desirable property of software. Many different metrics have been suggested in the last several years to measure the cohesion of classes in object-oriented systems. The class of structural object-oriented cohesion metrics is the most in-vestigated category of cohesion metrics. These metrics measure cohesion on structural information extracted from the source code. Empirical studies noted that these metrics fail in many situations to properly reflect cohesion of classes. This paper aims at exploring the use of hierarchical clustering techniques to improve the measurement of cohesion of classes in object-oriented systems. The proposed approach has been evaluated using three particular case studies. We also used in our study three well-known structural cohesion metrics. The achieved results show that the new approach appears to better reflect the cohesion (and structure) of classes than traditional structural cohesion metrics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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