MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280397671 · doi:10.4230/dagrep.4.5.40

The Future of Refactoring (Dagstuhl Seminar 14211)

2014· article· en· W2280397671 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Danny Dig, William G. Griswold, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Max Schäfer

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de PernambucoUniversiteit AntwerpenUniversity of WaterlooEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichUniversitetet i OsloOregon State UniversityTechnische Universiteit DelftUniversity of BernGoogleUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversidade de PernambucoUniversität TrierPortland State UniversityIowa State University
KeywordsCode refactoringPaceComputer scienceSoftware engineeringPlan (archaeology)BreakoutWork (physics)SoftwareProgramming languageEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 14211 on "The Future of Refactoring." Over the past decade, refactoring has become firmly established as an essential part of industrial software development. At the same time, academic interest in refactoring has grown at a fast pace, resulting in a large body of literature on many different aspects of refactoring. The aim of this seminar was to provide a forum for refactoring researchers and practitioners to discuss what has been achieved, get to know each others' work, and plan future collaboration. This report presents abstracts of the participants' talks and summaries of breakout sessions, and introduces some joint projects that were started as a result of the seminar.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207