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
JavaScript is a powerful and flexible prototype-based scripting language that is increasingly used by developers to create interactive web applications. The language is interpreted, dynamic, weakly-typed, and has first-class functions. In addition, it interacts with other web languages such as CSS and HTML at runtime. All these characteristics make JavaScript code particularly error-prone and challenging to write and maintain. Code smells are patterns in the source code that can adversely influence program comprehension and maintainability of the program in the long term. We propose a set of 13 JavaScript code smells, collected from various developer resources. We present a JavaScript code smell detection technique called JSNOSE. Our metric-based approach combines static and dynamic analysis to detect smells in client-side code. This automated technique can help developers to spot code that could benefit from refactoring. We evaluate the smell finding capabilities of our technique through an empirical study. By analyzing 11 web applications, we investigate which smells detected by JSNOSE are more prevalent.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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