Étude de la changeabilité des systèmes orientés objet.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume. Plusieurs etudes montrent qu’avec le temps, la plupart des systemes deviennent difficiles a maintenir et que leur croissance ralentit. Il existe cependant certains systemes qui utilisent les mecanismes fournis par le paradigme des objets pour soutenir un rythme de developpement eleve. Dans cet article, nous etudions les facteurs qui affectent la changeabilite de quatre logiciels libres populaires. Deux applications et deux librairies ont ete selectionnees, puis caracterisees avec des metriques orientees objet classiques. Ces informations ont ete utilisees pour bâtir des modeles de prediction de changement avec des techniques d’apprentissage automatique. Dans le cas de deux librairies avec des modeles de domaine suffisamment precis, les modeles predictifs ont ete capables d’estimer correctement le taux de changement dans le code. Dans le cas de deux applications, ces modeles etaient beaucoup moins precis, mais il a ete toutefois possible de predire les changements dans les classes responsables des interfaces graphiques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".