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
A one-day workshop was held on the topic of mining software repositories at ICSE 2004 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The workshop brought together researchers and practitioners in order to consider methods that use data stored in software repositories (such as source control systems, defect tracking systems, and archived project communications) to further understanding of software development practices. We divided submissions into six sessions, each devoted to a particular topic: 1) Infrastructure and Extraction, 2) Integration and Presentation, 3) System Understanding and Change Patterns, 4) Defect Analysis, 5) Process and Community Analysis, and 6) Software Reuse. To maximize interaction and discussion, we limited each session to a survey of the topic area, followed by the presentation of one or two papers, then an open discussion. We also allocated a demo hour to give interested parties the opportunity to learn more about other accepted papers.This report includes an overview of the presentations made during these sessions and a summary of the issues raised throughout the workshop.
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 | 0.306 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it