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
Peer code review locates common coding rule violations and simple logical errors in the early phases of software development, and thus reduces overall cost. However, in GitHub, identifying an appropriate code reviewer for a pull request is a non-trivial task given that reliable information for reviewer identification is often not readily available. In this paper, we propose a code reviewer recommendation technique that considers not only the relevant cross-project work history (e.g., external library experience) but also the experience of a developer in certain specialized technologies associated with a pull request for determining her expertise as a potential code reviewer. We first motivate our technique using an exploratory study with 10 commercial projects and 10 associated libraries external to those projects. Experiments using 17,115 pull requests from 10 commercial projects and six open source projects show that our technique provides 85%-- 92% recommendation accuracy, about 86% precision and 79%--81% recall in code reviewer recommendation, which are highly promising. Comparison with the state-of-the-art technique also validates the empirical findings and the superiority of our recommendation technique.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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