MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316465827 · doi:10.7763/ijcte.2013.v5.742

Metrics and Software Quality Evolution: A Case Study on Open Source Software

2013· article· en· W2316465827 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

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware evolutionMetric (unit)Software qualityQuality (philosophy)Software metricSoftwareOpen source softwareSubject (documents)Quality assuranceSoftware systemSoftware engineeringData miningSoftware developmentSoftware constructionWorld Wide WebProgramming languageOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at analyzing empirically the quality evolution of an open source software using metrics.We used a control flow based metric (Quality Assurance Indicator -Qi) which we proposed in a previous work.We wanted to investigate if the Qi metric can be used to observe how quality evolves along the evolution of the successive released versions of the subject software system.We addressed software quality from an internal perspective.We performed an empirical analysis using historical data on the subject system (Apache Tomcat).The collected data cover, in fact, a period of more than seven years (thirty-one versions in total).Empirical results provide evidence that the Qi metric reflects properly the quality evolution of the subject system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.281 · 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