Recovering traceability links between an API and its learning resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large frameworks and libraries require extensive developer learning resources, such as documentation and mailing lists, to be useful. Maintaining these learning resources is challenging partly because they are not explicitly linked to the frameworks' API, and changes in the API are not reflected in the learning resources. Automatically recovering traceability links between an API and learning resources is notoriously difficult due to the inherent ambiguity of unstructured natural language. Code elements mentioned in documents are rarely fully qualified, so readers need to understand the context in which a code element is mentioned. We propose a technique that identifies code-like terms in documents and links these terms to specific code elements in an API, such as methods. In an evaluation study with four open source systems, we found that our technique had an average recall and precision of 96%.
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 | 0.005 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".