Report from the 2nd international workshop on replication in empirical software engineering research (RESER 2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The RESER workshop provides a venue in which empirical software engineering researchers can discuss the theoretical foundations and methods of replication, as well as present the results of specific replicated studies. In 2011, the workshop co-located with the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) in Banff, Alberta, Canada. In addition to several outstanding paper sessions, highlights of the 2011 workshop included a keynote address by Dr. Victor R. Basili, in which he addressed the question, "What's so hard about replication of software engineering experiments?" The workshop also featured a joint replication panel session discussing the first cooperative joint replication ever conducted in empirical software engineering research and a planning session for next year's joint replication project addressing Conway's Law.
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 | 0.160 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.042 |
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".