MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121435431 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.886v1

What do programmers know about the energy consumption of software?

2015· article· en· W3121435431 on OpenAlexaff
Candy Pang, Abram Hindle, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy consumptionSoftwareCloud computingPopularityEfficient energy useSoftware engineeringMobile deviceSoftware developmentConsumption (sociology)Software frameworkOperating systemSoftware constructionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, programmers have received a wide range of training on programming languages and methodologies, but rarely about software energy consumption. Yet, the popularity of mobile devices and cloud computing require increased awareness about software energy consumption. On a mobile device, computation is often limited by the battery life. Under the demands of cloud computing, data centers struggle to reduce energy consumption through vir- tualization and data center infrastructure management (DCIM) systems. Efficient energy consumption of software is increasingly becoming an important non-functional requirement for programmers. However, are programmers knowledgeable enough about software energy consumption? Do programmers base their implementation decision on popular beliefs? In this article, we survey over 100 programmers for their knowledge of software energy con- sumption. We find that programmers have limited knowledge about energy efficiency, lack the knowledge about the best practice to reduce energy consumption of software, and are often unsure about how software consumes energy. Education about the importance of energy effective software will benefit the programmers. Our results highlight the need for training about energy consumption and efficiency.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207