MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070548384 · doi:10.1109/msr.2013.6624005

Deficient documentation detection a methodology to locate deficient project documentation using topic analysis

2013· article· en· W2070548384 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Charles Campbell, Chenlei Zhang, Zhen Xu, Abram Hindle, James Miller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationPython (programming language)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebScope (computer science)Internal documentationApplication programming interfaceSoftware engineeringProgramming languageInformation retrievalSoftwareSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A project's documentation is the primary source of information for developers using that project. With hundreds of thousands of programming-related questions posted on programming Q&A websites, such as Stack Overflow, we question whether the developer-written documentation provides enough guidance for programmers. In this study, we wanted to know if there are any topics which are inadequately covered by the project documentation. We combined questions from Stack Overflow and documentation from the PHP and Python projects. Then, we applied topic analysis to this data using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), and found topics in Stack Overflow that did not overlap the project documentation. We successfully located topics that had deficient project documentation. We also found topics in need of tutorial documentation that were outside of the scope of the PHP or Python projects, such as MySQL and HTML.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207