MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209467133 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.2595071

Security Bug Conversations

2019· dataset· en· W3209467133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin S. Meyers, Nuthan Munaiah, Andrew Meneely, Emily Prud’hommeaux

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset will be released as part of the following publication. Benjamin S. Meyers, Nuthan Munaiah, Andrew Meneely, and Emily Prud'hommeaux. <strong>Pragmatic Characteristics of Security Conversation: An Exploratory Linguistic Analysis. </strong><em>Forthcoming.</em><strong> </strong>Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE 2019). Montréal, QC, Canada. <strong>Files:</strong> <pre><code>security_bug_conversations.csv</code></pre> The full dataset containing over 2.1 million comments posted by developers discussing bugs in the Chromium project. The dataset also includes the values we calculated for the five pragmatic features (described in Section 3 of the paper cited above). <strong>CSV Fields:</strong> <strong>Organizational:</strong> <em>Bug ID:</em> Unique identifier of a bug discussion in the Chromium project. The URL https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=&lt;Bug ID&gt; may be used to access the bug online <em>Comment ID:</em> Unique identifier of a comment in a bug discussion <strong>Classification:</strong> <em>Is Security:</em> Binary indicator of whether or not a comment is part of a bug that is about security <strong>Natural Language:</strong> <em>Comment Text:</em> The raw natural language text of the bug comment <strong>Linguistic Metrics:</strong> <em>Min. Formality:</em> Minimum of the formality of sentences in the bug comment <em>Max. Formality:</em> Maximum of the formality of sentences in the bug comment <em>Max. Informativeness:</em> Maximum of the informativeness of sentences in the bug comment <em>Max. Implicature:</em> Maximum of the implicature of sentences in the bug comment <em>Min. Politeness:</em> Minimum of the politeness of sentences in the bug comment <em>Max. Politeness:</em> Maximum of the politeness of sentences in the bug comment Number of Tokens Number of Sentences <em>Has Doxastic Uncertainty:</em> Binary indicator of presence of a sentence with doxastic uncertainty in the bug comment <em>Has Epistemic Uncertainty:</em> Binary indicator of presence of a sentence with epistemic uncertainty in the bug comment <em>Has Conditional Uncertainty:</em> Binary indicator of presence of a sentence with conditional uncertainty in the bug comment <em>Has Investigational Uncertainty:</em> Binary indicator of presence of a sentence with investigational uncertainty in the bug comment <em>Has Uncertainty:</em> Binary indicator of presence of a sentence with any uncertainty in the bug comment

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.076

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207