Knowledge reuse in software projects: Retrieving software development Q&A posts based on project task similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software developers need to cope with a massive amount of knowledge throughout the typical life cycle of modern projects. This knowledge includes expertise related to the software development phases (e.g., programming, testing) using a wide variety of methods and tools, including development methodologies (e.g., waterfall, agile), software tools (e.g., Eclipse), programming languages (e.g., Java, SQL), and deployment strategies (e.g., Docker, Jenkins). However, there is no explicit integration of these various types of knowledge with software development projects so that developers can avoid having to search over and over for similar and recurrent solutions to tasks and reuse this knowledge. Specifically, Q&A sites such as Stack Overflow are used by developers to share software development knowledge through posts published in several categories, but there is no link between these posts and the tasks developers perform. In this paper, we present an approach that (i) allows developers to associate project tasks with Stack Overflow posts, and (ii) recommends which Stack Overflow posts might be reused based on task similarity. We analyze an industry dataset, which contains project tasks associated with Stack Overflow posts, looking for the similarity of project tasks that reuse a Stack Overflow post. The approach indicates that when a software developer is performing a task, and this task is similar to another task that has been associated with a post, the same post can be recommended to the developer and possibly reused. We believe that this approach can significantly advance the state of the art of software knowledge reuse by supporting novel knowledge-project associations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".