Do the stars align?: multidimensional analysis of Android's layered architecture
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
In this paper we mine the Android bug tracker repository and study the characteristics of the architectural layers of the Android system. We have identified the locality of the Android bugs in the architectural layers of the its infrastructure, and analysed the bug lifetime patterns in each one of them. Additionally, we mined the bug tracker reporters and classified them according to its social centrality in the Android bug tracker community. We report three interesting findings, firstly while some architectural layers have a diverse interaction of people, attracting not only non-central reporters but highly important ones, other layers are mostly captivating for peripheral actors. Second, we exposed that even the bug lifetime is similar across the architectural layers, some of them have higher bug density and differential percentages of unsolved bugs. Finally, comparing the popularity distribution between layers, we have identified one particular layer that is more important to developers and users alike.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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