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
Refactoring is a common software development practice and many simple refactorings can be performed automatically by tools. Identifier renaming is a widely performed refactoring activity. With tool support, rename refactorings can rely on the program structure to ensure correctness of the code transformation. Unfortunately, the textual references to the renamed identifier present in the unstructured comment text cannot be formally detected through the syntax of the language, and are thus fragile with respect to identifier renaming. We designed a new rule-based approach to detect fragile comments. Our approach, called Fraco, takes into account the type of identifier, its morphology, the scope of the identifier and the location of comments. We evaluated the approach by comparing its precision and recall against hand-annotated benchmarks created for six target Java systems, and compared the results against the performance of Eclipse's automated in-comment identifier replacement feature. Fraco performed with near-optimal precision and recall on most components of our evaluation data set, and generally outperformed the baseline Eclipse feature. As part of our evaluation, we also noted that more than half of the total number of identifiers in our data set had fragile comments after renaming, which further motivates the need for research on automatic comment refactoring.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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