Online sharing and integration of results from mining software repositories
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 mining of software repository involves the extraction of both basic and value-added information from existing software repositories. Depending on stakeholders (e.g., researchers, management), these repositories are mined several times for different application purposes. To avoid unnecessary pre-processing steps and improve productivity, sharing, and integration of extracted facts and results are needed. The motivation of this research is to introduce a novel collaborative sharing platform for software datasets that supports on-the-fly inter-datasets integration. We want to facilitate and promote a paradigm shift in the source code analysis domain, similar to the one by Wikipedia in the knowledge-sharing domain. In this paper, we present the SeCold project, which is the first online, publicly available software ecosystem Linked Data dataset. As part of this research, not only theoretical background on how to publish such datasets is provided, but also the actual dataset. SeCold contains about two billion facts, such as source code statements, software licenses, and code clones from over 18.000 software projects. SeCold is also an official member of the Linked Data cloud and one of the eight largest online Linked Data datasets available on the cloud.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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