4th international workshop on realizing AI synergies in software engineering (RAISE 2015)
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
This workshop is the fourth in the series and continued to build upon the work carried out at the previous iterations of the International Workshop on Realizing Artificial Intelligence Synergies in Software Engineering, which were held at ICSE in 2012, 2013 and 2014. RAISE 2015 brought together researchers and practitioners from the artificial intelligence (AI) and software engineering (SE) disciplines to build on the interdis- ciplinary synergies that exist and to stimulate further interaction across these disciplines. Mutually beneficial characteristics have appeared in the past few decades and are still evolving due to new challenges and technological advances. Hence, the question that motivates and drives the RAISE Workshop series is: Are SE and AI researchers ignoring important insights from AI and SE?. To pursue this question, RAISE'15 explored not only the application of AI techniques to SE problems but also the application of SE techniques to AI problems. RAISE not only strengthens the AI- and-SE community but also continues to develop a roadmap of strategic research directions for AI and SE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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