Identifying crosscutting concerns using historical code changes
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
Detailed knowledge about implemented concerns in the source code is crucial for the cost-effective maintenance and successful evolution of large systems. Concern mining techniques can automatically suggest sets of related code fragments that likely contribute to the implementation of a concern. However, developers must then spend considerable time understanding and expanding these concern seeds to obtain the full concern implementation. We propose a new mining technique (COMMIT) that reduces this manual effort. COMMIT addresses three major shortcomings of current concern mining techniques: 1) their inability to merge seeds with small variations, 2) their tendency to ignore important facets of concerns, and 3) their lack of information about the relations between seeds. A comparative case study on two large open source C systems (PostgreSQL and NetBSD) shows that COMMIT recovers up to 87.5% more unique concerns than two leading concern mining techniques, and that the three techniques complement each other.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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