MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023992080 · doi:10.1145/1463788.1463807

A taxonomy of software types to facilitate search and evidence-based software engineering

2008· article· en· W2023992080 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTaxonomy (biology)Software engineeringSearch-based software engineeringSoftwareSoftware constructionSoftware developmentProgramming languageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical software research could be improved if there was a systematic way to identify the types of software for which empirical evidence applies. This is because results are unlikely to be globally applicable, but are more likely to apply only in certain contexts such as the type of software on which the evidence has been tested. We present a software taxonomy that should help researchers to apply their research systematically to particular types of software. The taxonomy was generated using existing partial taxonomies and input from survey participants. If a taxonomy such as ours gains acceptance, it will facilitate comparison and appropriate application of research. In the paper, we present the benefits of such a taxonomy, the process we used to develop it, and the taxonomy itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.418
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.068 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207