MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064653370 · doi:10.5555/2820518.2820527

Co-evolution of infrastructure and source code: an empirical study

2015· article· en· W2064653370 on OpenAlexaff
Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Software Repositories · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceServerSource codeEmpirical researchCritical infrastructureDatabaseProcess (computing)Software engineeringOperating systemProgramming languageComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrastructure-as-code automates the process of configuring and setting up the environment (e.g., servers, VMs and databases) in which a software system will be tested and/or deployed, through textual specification files in a language like Puppet or Chef. Since the environment is instantiated automatically by the infrastructure languages' tools, no manual intervention is necessary apart from maintaining the infrastructure specification files. The amount of work involved with such maintenance, as well as the size and complexity of infrastructure specification files, have not yet been studied empirically. Through an empirical study of the version control system of 265 Open Stack projects, we find that infrastructure files are large and churn frequently, which could indicate a potential of introducing bugs. Furthermore, we found that the infrastructure code files are coupled tightly with the other files in a project, especially test files, which implies that testers often need to change infrastructure specifications when making changes to the test framework and tests.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Software RepositoriesSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207