MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041783719 · doi:10.1145/2517349.2522727

Do not blame users for misconfigurations

2013· article· en· W2041783719 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Computer and Network SystemsNetAppUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware bugBlameSoftwareBackportingSoftware engineeringSoftware maintenanceSoftware configuration managementComputer securitySoftware developmentWorld Wide WebComponent-based software engineeringOperating systemSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to software bugs, configuration errors are also one of the major causes of today's system failures. Many configuration issues manifest themselves in ways similar to software bugs such as crashes, hangs, silent failures. It leaves users clueless and forced to report to developers for technical support, wasting not only users' but also developers' precious time and effort. Unfortunately, unlike software bugs, many software developers take a much less active, responsible role in handling configuration errors because "they are users' faults."

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations173
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207