Understanding User Understanding: What do Developers Expect from a Cognitive Assistant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software development is a complex endeavor that depends on a wide variety of contextual factors involving a large amount of distributed information such as technology-related tasks, software operating environments and stakeholder requirements. Most of this context is implicit and captured in the developers' minds (tacit) or distributed through volumes of documentation. Developers have to maintain mental models of this variety of tasks and information as they produce the software. As a result, context can be easily lost or forgotten and developers often use adhoc approaches while finishing the project. We present in this paper the preliminary results of a study that aims at analyzing qualitatively whether supporting software developers with a chatbot during task execution can improve the overall development experience. The chatbot can assist the developers in executing different tasks based on implicit contextual information. We propose an implementation to explore the viability of using textual chatbots to assist developers automatically and proactively with software development project activities that recur. We believe that understanding the interaction of developers with the systems supported by chatbots is key to improving the developer experience and advancing software engineering practices by providing needed timely support for developers.
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 | 0.017 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".