Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the adoption and usage of any programming language feature is crucial for improving it. Existing studies indicate that Java annotations are widely used by developers. However, there is currently no empirical data on annotation usage in Android apps. Android apps are often smaller than general Java applications and typically use Android APIs or specific libraries catered to the mobile environment. Therefore, it is not clear if the results of existing Java studies hold for Android apps. In this paper, we investigate annotation practices in Android apps through an empirical study of 1,141 open-source apps. Using previously studied metrics, we first compare annotation usage in Android apps to existing results from general Java applications. Then, for the first time, we study why developers declare custom annotations. Our results show that the density of annotations and the values of various other annotation metrics are notably less in Android apps than in Java projects. Additionally, the types of annotations used in Android apps are different than those in Java, with many Android-specific annotations. These results imply that researchers may need to distinguish mobile apps while performing studies on programming language features. However, we also found examples of extreme usage of annotations with, for example, a large number of attributes, as well as a low adoption rate for most annotations. By looking at such results, annotation designers can assess adoption patterns and take various improvement measures, such as modularizing their offered annotations or cleaning up unused ones. Finally, we find that developers declare custom annotations in different apps but with the same purpose, which presents an opportunity for annotation designers to create new annotations.
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 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".