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
Software developers need to cope with complexity of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of external libraries or frameworks. However, typical APIs provide several thousands of methods to their client programs, and such large APIs are difficult to learn and use. An API method is generally used within client programs along with other methods of the API of interest. Despite this, co-usage relationships between API methods are often not documented. We propose a technique for mining Multi-Level API Usage Patterns (MLUP) to exhibit the co-usage relationships between methods of the API of interest across interfering usage scenarios. We detect multi-level usage patterns as distinct groups of API methods, where each group is uniformly used across variable client programs, independently of usage contexts. We evaluated our technique through the usage of four APIs having up to 22 client programs per API. For all the studied APIs, our technique was able to detect usage patterns that are, almost all, highly consistent and highly cohesive across a considerable variability of client programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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