MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166414580 · doi:10.1109/msr.2007.7

Determining Implementation Expertise from Bug Reports

2007· article· en· W2166414580 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftware bugFalse positive paradoxSoftwareSoftware maintenanceSet (abstract data type)Product (mathematics)Code reviewSoftware peer reviewData scienceSoftware developmentStatic program analysisSoftware constructionProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As developers work on a software product they accumulate expertise, including expertise about the code base of the software product. We call this type of expertise 'implementation expertise'. Knowing the set of developers who have implementation expertise for a software product has many important uses. This paper presents an empirical evaluation of two approaches to determining implementation expertise from the data in source and bug repositories. The expertise sets created by the approaches are compared to those provided by experts and evaluated using the measures of precision and recall. We found that both approaches are good at finding all of the appropriate developers, although they vary in how many false positives are returned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207