MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107321288 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2005.52

Improved tool support for the investigation of duplication in software

2005· article· en· W2107321288 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware systemSoftwareSoftware engineeringCode (set theory)Software maintenanceProgram comprehensionGene duplicationSet (abstract data type)Software constructionCloning (programming)Software evolutionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Code duplication is a well documented problem in software systems. There has been considerable research into techniques for detecting duplication in software, and there are several effective tools to perform this task. However, a common problem with such tools is that the result set returned can be too large to handle without complementary tool support. The goal of this paper is to describe the criteria for a complete tool that is designed to aid in the comprehension of cloning within a software system. Furthermore, we present a prototype of such a tool and demonstrate the value of its features through a case study on the Apache httpd Web server. For example, in our study we found that a single subsystem comprising only 17% of the system code contained 38.8% of the clones.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207