A Feedback Based Quality Assessment to Support Open Source Software Evolution: the GRASS Case Study
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
Managing the software evolution for large open source software is a major challenge. Some factors that make software hard to maintain are geographically distributed development teams, frequent and rapid turnover of volunteers, absence of a formal means, and lack of documentation and explicit project planning. In this paper we propose remote and continuous analysis of open source software to monitor evolution using available resources such as CVS code repository, commitment log files and exchanged mail. Evolution monitoring relies on three principal services. The first service analyzes and monitors the increase in complexity and the decline in quality; the second supports distributed developers by sending them a feedback report after each contribution; the third allows developers to gain insight into the "big picture" of software by providing a dashboard of project evolution. Besides the description of provided services, the paper presents a prototype environment for continuous analysis of the evolution of GRASS, an open source software.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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