Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software merging researchers constantly need empirical data of real-world merge scenarios to analyze. Such data is currently extracted through individual and isolated efforts, often with non-systematically designed scripts that may not easily scale to large studies. This hinders replication and proper comparison of results. In this paper, we introduce MERGANSER, a scalable and easy-to-use tool for extracting and analyzing merge scenarios in Git repositories. In addition to extracting basic information about merge scenarios from Git history, our tool also replays each merge to detect conflicts and stores the corresponding information of conflicting files and regions. We design a normalized and extensible SQL data schema to store the information of the analyzed repositories, merge scenarios and involved commits, and merge replays and conflicts. By running only one command, our proposed tool clones the target repositories, detects their merge scenarios, and stores their information in a SQL database. MERGANSER is written in Python and released under the MIT license. In this tool paper, we describe MERGANSER's architecture and provide guidance for its usage in practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".