MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091379928 · doi:10.1145/774833.774839

EVolve

2003· article· en· W2091379928 on OpenAlexaff
Qin Wang, Wei Wang, Rhodes Brown, Karel Driesen, Bruno Dufour, Laurie Hendren, Clark Verbrugge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationJavaExtensibilityProtocol (science)Context (archaeology)Data visualizationVariety (cybernetics)Human–computer interactionProgramming languageSoftware engineeringData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing visualization tools typically do not allow easy extension by new visualization techniques, and are often coupled with inflexible data input mechanisms. This paper presents EVolve, a flexible and extensible framework for visualizing program characteristics and behaviour. The framework is flexible in the sense that it can visualize many kinds of data, and it is extensible in the sense that it is quite straightforward to add new kinds of visualizations.The overall architecture of the framework consists of the core EVolve platform that communicates with data sources via a well defined data protocol and which communicates with visualization methods via a visualization protocol.Given a data source, an end-user can use EVolve as a stand-alone tool by interactively creating, configuring and modifying visualizations. A variety of visualizations are provided in the current EVolve library, with features that facilitate the comparison of multiple views on the same execution data. We demonstrate EVolve in the context of visualizing execution behaviour of Java programs.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207