MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092731145 · doi:10.1145/1370750.1370787

A newbie's guide to eclipse APIs

2008· article· en· W2092731145 on OpenAlexaff
Reid Holmes, Robert J. Walker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclipseDocumentationComputer scienceJavaSoftware engineeringPopularityFlexibility (engineering)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eclipse has evolved from a fledgling Java IDE into a mature software ecosystem. One of the greatest benefits Eclipse provides developers is flexibility; however, this is not without cost. New Eclipse developers often find the framework to be large and confusing. Determining which parts of the framework they should be using can be a difficult task as Eclipse documentation tends to be either very high-level, focusing on the design of the framework, or low-level, focusing on specific APIs. We have developed a tool called PopCon that provides a bridge between high-level design documentation and low-level API documentation by statically analyzing a framework and several of its clients and providing a ranked list of the relative popularity of its APIs. We have applied PopCon to the Eclipse framework for this challenge to help newbie Eclipse developers identify some of the most relevant APIs for their tasks.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207