Mining usage data and development artifacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software repository mining techniques generally focus on analyzing, unifying, and querying different kinds of development artifacts, such as source code, version control meta-data, defect tracking data, and electronic communication. In this work, we demonstrate how adding real-world usage data enables addressing broader questions of how software systems are actually used in practice, and by inference how development characteristics ultimately affect deployment, adoption, and usage. In particular, we explore how usage data that has been extracted from web server logs can be unified with product release history to study questions that concern both users ’ detailed dynamic behaviour as well as broad adoption trends across different deployment environments. To validate our approach, we performed a study of two open source web browsers: Firefox and Chrome. We found that while Chrome is being adopted at a consistent rate across platforms, Linux users have an order of magnitude higher rate of Firefox adoption. Also, Firefox adoption has been concentrated mainly in North America, while Chrome users appear to be more evenly distributed across the globe. Finally, we detected no evidence in age-specific differences in navigation behaviour among Chrome and Firefox users; however, we hypothesize that younger users are more likely to have more up-to-date versions than more mature users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".