MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316930373 · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2550458

Developer Micro Interaction Metrics for Software Defect Prediction

2016· article· en· W2316930373 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyNeurosciences Research Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceEclipseLeverage (statistics)Software quality assuranceSoftware qualitySoftware bugSoftwareSoftware metricSoftware engineeringSource codeSoftware developmentTask (project management)Plug-inMachine learningOperating systemSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To facilitate software quality assurance, defect prediction metrics, such as source code metrics, change churns, and the number of previous defects, have been actively studied. Despite the common understanding that developer behavioral interaction patterns can affect software quality, these widely used defect prediction metrics do not consider developer behavior. We therefore propose micro interaction metrics (MIMs), which are metrics that leverage developer interaction information. The developer interactions, such as file editing and browsing events in task sessions, are captured and stored as information by Mylyn, an Eclipse plug-in. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that MIMs significantly improve overall defect prediction accuracy when combined with existing software measures, perform well in a cost-effective manner, and provide intuitive feedback that enables developers to recognize their own inefficient behaviors during software development.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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