MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796071471 · doi:10.1109/saner.2018.8330217

A generalized model for visualizing library popularity, adoption, and diffusion within a software ecosystem

2018· article· en· W2796071471 on OpenAlexaff
Raula Gaikovina Kula, Coen De Roover, Daniel M. Germán, Takashi Ishio, Katsuro Inoue

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsComputer sciencePopularityDependency (UML)SoftwareReuseEcosystemData scienceSoftware evolutionSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebSoftware developmentSoftware constructionEcologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of super repositories such as Maven Central and the CRAN is a testament to software reuse activities in both open-source and commercial projects alike. However, several studies have highlighted the risks and dangers brought about by application developers keeping dependencies on outdated library versions. Intelligent mining of super repositories could reveal hidden trends within the corresponding software ecosystem and thereby provide valuable insights for such dependency-related decisions. In this paper, we propose the Software Universe Graph (SUG) Model as a structured abstraction of the evolution of software systems and their library dependencies over time. To demonstrate the SUG's usefulness, we conduct an empirical study using 6,374 Maven artifacts and over 6,509 CRAN packages mined from their real-world ecosystems. Visualizations of the SUG model such as `library coexistence pairings' and `dependents diffusion' uncover popularity, adoption and diffusion patterns within each software ecosystem. Results show the Maven ecosystem as having a more conservative approach to dependency updating than the CRAN ecosystem.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207