MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084788889 · doi:10.1109/saner.2015.7081869

Trusting a library: A study of the latency to adopt the latest Maven release

2015· article· en· W2084788889 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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityCorrectnessComputer scienceDependency (UML)Open sourceLatency (audio)World Wide WebComputer securitySoftware engineeringOperating systemPolitical scienceSoftwareProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the popularity of open source library (re)use in both industrial and open source settings, `trust' plays vital role in third-party library adoption. Trust involves the assumption of both functional and non-functional correctness. Even with the aid of dependency management build tools such as Maven and Gradle, research have still found a latency to trust the latest release of a library. In this paper, we investigate the trust of OSS libraries. Our study of 6,374 systems in Maven Super Repository suggests that 82% of systems are more trusting of adopting the latest library release to existing systems. We uncover the impact of maven on latent and trusted library adoptions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207