MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240280987 · doi:10.1145/1595808

Proceedings of the joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on Principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops

2009· paratext· en· W4240280987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware evolutionSoftware reviewComputer scienceTheme (computing)Consistency (knowledge bases)SoftwareEvent (particle physics)Software developmentSoftware engineeringData scienceSoftware constructionWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IWPSE-Evol'09 merges the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE) and the annual ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution (Evol), and is the premier event dedicated to software evolution in 2009. To celebrate the 10th anniversary of IWPSE, the 5th anniversary of the ERCIM evolution workshop, and the 20th anniversary of ERCIM itself, we have chosen to join forces by organising a common event at ESEC/FSE 2009, under the special theme "The Future of Software Evolution". We explicitly solicited submissions that take a historical perspective on a particular facet of software evolution research, practice or education, argue for the current challenges, and speculate on what the future might bring. We received 36 submissions, 20 of which were full papers. The short papers comprised 14 position papers and 2 tool papers. We asked authors to classify their submissions according to 15 topics, in order to facilitate matching with the expertise of the program committee members. Every paper could be classified in more than one topic. To give an idea of current research in software evolution, we list the six most popular topics: Processes, paradigms and methodologies for software evolution (14 papers)Measuring, analysing and visualising evolution (11 papers)Empirical studies and experience reports (10 papers)Consistency management and impact analysis (7 papers)History and future of software evolution (the workshop's theme); applying software evolution (each topic with 6 papers) After peer review and discussion of the submitted papers by an international program committee of experts in the field, only 10 full papers and 8 short papers were accepted. As can be seen from the table of contents of these proceedings, the accepted papers cover a very wide range of issues, from specific techniques to cope with software evolution to infrastructure that facilitates research in this field, and approaches, from formal to empirical. We hope that these proceedings will serve as a valuable reference for future software evolution researchers and for developers facing the problems of ever-changing software systems. Given the historical perspective of this year's edition of the joint workshop, the program chairs invited Takuya Katayama (Professor at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology), the founding father of the IWPSE workshop series, and Tom Mens (Professor at the University of Mons, Belgium), the chair and founding father of the ERCIM Working Group on Software Evolution, to give anniversary talks on IWPSE and EVOL, respectively. They accepted the challenge to look back on the history of IWPSE and the ERCIM Working Group, and to highlight future opportunities for software evolution research. We are also delighted that Hausi Müller (Professor at the University of Victoria, Canada) accepted our invitation to give a keynote talk on a particular field of software evolution that has seen quite some activity in recent years: run-time evolution to enable autonomic systems that self-adapt to changing environments.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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