MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122467011 · doi:10.1145/2678025.2701387

Exploring Personalized Command Recommendations based on Information Found in Web Documentation

2015· article· en· W2122467011 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
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationComputer scienceTask (project management)World Wide WebSoftwarePlan (archaeology)Feature (linguistics)Web applicationSoftware documentationInformation retrievalHuman–computer interactionSoftware systemProgramming languageSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior work on command recommendations for feature-rich software has relied on data supplied by a large community of users to generate personalized recommendations. In this work, we explore the feasibility of using an alternative data source: web documentation. Specifically, our approach uses QF-Graphs, a previously proposed technique that maps higher-level tasks (i.e., search queries) to commands referenced in online documentation. Our approach uses these command-to-task mappings as an automatically generated plan library, enabling our prototype system to make personalized recommendations for task-relevant commands. Through both offline and online evaluations, we explore potential benefits and drawbacks of this approach.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 communication0.0000.004
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Data Mining and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207