Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications built on reusable component frameworks are subject to two independent, and potentially conflicting, evolution processes. The application evolves in response to the specific requirements and desired qualities of the application's stakeholders. On the other hand, the evolution of the component framework is driven by the need to improve the framework functionality and quality while maintaining its generality. Thus, changes to the component framework frequently change its API on which its client applications rely and, as a result, these applications break. To date, there has been some work aimed at supporting the migration of client applications to newer versions of their underlying frameworks, but it usually requires that the framework developers do additional work for that purpose or that the application developers use the same tools as the framework developers. In this paper, we discuss our approach to tackle the API-evolution problem in the context of reuse-based software development, which automatically recognizes the API changes of the reused framework and proposes plausible replacements to the "obsolete" API based on working examples of the framework code base. This approach has been implemented in the Diff-CatchUp tool. We report on two case studies that we have conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of our approach with its Diff-CatchUp prototype.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".