Discovering Information Explaining API Types Using Text Classification
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
Abstract—Many software development tasks require develop-ers to quickly learn a subset of an Application Programming Interface (API). API learning resources are crucial for helping developers learn an API, but the knowledge relevant to a particular topic of interest may easily be scattered across different documents, which makes finding the necessary information more challenging. This paper proposes an approach to discovering tutorial sections that explain a given API type. At the core of our approach, we classify fragmented tutorial sections using supervised text classification based on linguistic and structural features. Experiments conducted on five tutorials show that our approach is able to discover sections explaining an API type with precision between 0.69 and 0.87 (depending on the tutorial) when trained and tested on the same tutorial. When trained and tested across tutorials, we obtained a precision between 0.74 and 0.94 and lower recall values. I.
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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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