Automatically Categorizing Software Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informal language and the absence of a standard taxonomy for software technologies make it difficult to reliably analyze technology trends on discussion forums and other on-line venues. We propose an automated approach called Witt for the categorization of software technologies (an expanded version of the hypernym discovery problem). Witt takes as input a phrase describing a software technology or concept and returns a general category that describes it (e.g., integrated development environment), along with attributes that further qualify it (commercial, php, etc.). By extension, the approach enables the dynamic creation of lists of all technologies of a given type (e.g., web application frameworks). Our approach relies on Stack Overflow and Wikipedia, and involves numerous original domain adaptations and a new solution to the problem of normalizing automatically-detected hypernyms. We compared Witt with six independent taxonomy tools and found that, when applied to software terms, Witt demonstrated better coverage than all evaluated alternative solutions, without a corresponding degradation in false positive rate.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".