Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of communication is central to any software development. The documentation forms the message carrier within the communication infrastructure of a software project. As software development processes shift from predictive to adaptive environments and serve an ever more hardware diverse demographic, new communication challenges arise. For example, an engineer may want to be able to remotely author a document in a shell environment without the need of any special purpose software, port it to different computer architectures, and provide different views of it to users without making modifications to the original. However, the current state of affairs of software documentation is inadequate to respond to such expectations. In this article, we take the position that the ability of documents to be able to communicate at all levels intrinsically depends upon their representation. The rest of the article proceeds as follows. We first outline the background necessary for later discussion. This is followed by a proposal for a quality-based framework for representing software documentation in descriptive markup and application to agile software documentation. Next, challenges and avenues for future research are outlined. Finally, concluding remarks are given.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".