MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395760792 · doi:10.1145/2876441

Understanding JavaScript Event-Based Interactions with Clematis

2016· article· en· W2395760792 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Alimadadi, Sheldon Sequeira, Ali Mesbah, Karthik Pattabiraman

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIntel Corporation
KeywordsComputer scienceJavaScriptProgram comprehensionEvent (particle physics)Software engineeringWeb applicationVisualizationAsynchronous communicationProgramming languageHuman–computer interactionSoftwareSoftware systemArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web applications have become one of the fastest-growing types of software systems today. Despite their popularity, understanding the behavior of modern web applications is still a challenging endeavor for developers during development and maintenance tasks. The challenges mainly stem from the dynamic, event-driven, and asynchronous nature of the JavaScript language. We propose a generic technique for capturing low-level event-based interactions in a web application and mapping those to a higher-level behavioral model. This model is then transformed into an interactive visualization, representing episodes of triggered causal and temporal events, related JavaScript code executions, and their impact on the dynamic DOM state. Our approach, implemented in a tool called C lematis , allows developers to easily understand the complex dynamic behavior of their application at three different semantic levels of granularity. Furthermore, C lematis helps developers bridge the gap between test cases and program code by localizing the fault related to a test assertion. The results of our industrial controlled experiment show that C lematis is capable of improving the comprehension task accuracy by 157% while reducing the task completion time by 47%. A follow-up experiment reveals that C lematis improves the fault localization accuracy of developers by a factor of two.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207