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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature describes several approaches to identify the artefacts of programs that evolve together to reveal the (hidden) dependencies among these artefacts and to infer and describe their evolution trends. We propose the use of biological methods to group artefacts, to detect co-evolution among them, and to construct their phylogenic trees to express their evolution trends. First, we introduced the novel concepts of macro co-changes (MCCs), i.e., of artefacts that co-change within a large time interval and of dephase macro co-changes (DMCCs), i.e., macro co-changes that always happen with the same shifts in time. We developped an approach, Macocha, to identify these new patterns of artefacts co-evolution in large programs. Now, we are analysing the evolution of classes playing roles in design patterns and — or antipatterns. In parallel to previous work, we are detecting what classes are in macro co-change or in dephase macro co-change with the design motifs. Results try to show that classes playing roles in design motifs have specifics evolution trends. Finally, we are implementing an approach, Profilo, to achieve the analysis of the evolution of artefacts and versions of large object-oriented programs. Profilo creates a phylogenic tree of different versions of program that describes versions evolution and the relation among versions and programs. We will, also, evaluate the usefulness of our tools using lab and field studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it