MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data in DevOps and Its Importance in Code Analytics

2020· book-chapter· en· W3003493628 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in systems analysis, software engineering, and high performance computing book series · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaCisco Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitDevOpsComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware engineeringData scienceComputer securityDatabaseOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust DevOps plays a huge role in the health and sanity of software. The metadata generated during DevOps need to be harnessed for deriving useful insights on the health of the software. This area of work can be classified as code analytics and comprises of the following (but not limited to): 1. commit history from the source code management system (SCM); 2. the engineers that worked on the commit; 3. the reviewers on the commit; 4. the extent of build (if applicable) and test validation prior to the commit, the types of failures found in iterative processes, and the fixes done; 5. test extent of test coverage on the commit; 6. any static profiling on the code in the commit; 7. the size and complexity of the commit; 8. many more. This chapter articulates many ways the above information can be used for effective software development.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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