What's hot and what's not: Windowed developer topic analysis
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
As development on a software project progresses, developers shift their focus between different topics and tasks many times. Managers and newcomer developers often seek ways of understanding what tasks have recently been worked on and how much effort has gone into each; for example, a manager might wonder what unexpected tasks occupied their team's attention during a period when they were supposed to have been implementing new features. Tools such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) can be used to extract a set of independent topics from a corpus of commit-log comments. Previous work in the area has created a single set of topics by analyzing comments from the entire lifetime of the project. In this paper, we propose windowing the topic analysis to give a more nuanced view of the system's evolution. By using a defined time-window of, for example, one month, we can track which topics come and go over time, and which ones recur. We propose visualizations of this model that allows us to explore the evolving stream of topics of development occurring over time. We demonstrate that windowed topic analysis offers advantages over topic analysis applied to a project's lifetime because many topics are quite local.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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