Towards convenient management of software clone codes in practice: an integrated approach
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
Software code cloning is inevitable during software development and unmanaged cloning practice can create substantial problems for software maintenance and evolution. Current research in the area software clones includes, but is not limited to: finding ways to manage clones; gaining more control over clone generation; and, studying clone evolution and its effects on the evolution of software. In this study, we investigate tools and techniques for detecting, managing, and understanding the evolution of clones, as well as design a convenient tool to make those techniques available to a developer's software development environment. Towards the goal of promoting the practical use of code clone research and to provide better support for managing clones in software systems, we first developed SimEclipse: a clone-aware software development platform, and then, using the tool, we performed a study to investigate the usefulness of using a number clone based technologies in an integrated platform rather than using those discretely. Finally, a small scale user study is performed to evaluate SimEclipse's effectiveness, usability and information management with respect to some pre-defined clone management activities. We believe that both researchers and developers would enjoy and utilize the benefits of using SimEclipse for different aspects of code clone research as well as for managing cloned code in software systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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