MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284709654 · doi:10.1145/3510003.3510159

CLEAR

2022· article· en· W4284709654 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceWord (group theory)Information retrievalEmbeddingSemantics (computer science)Programming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic API recommendation has been studied for years. There are two orthogonal lines of approaches for this task, i.e., information-retrieval-based (IR-based) and neural-based methods. Although these approaches were reported having remarkable performance, our observation shows that existing approaches can fail due to the following two reasons: 1) most IR-based approaches treat task queries as bag-of-words and use word embedding to represent queries, which cannot capture the sequential semantic information. 2) both the IR-based and the neural-based approaches are weak at distinguishing the semantic difference among lexically similar queries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.205 · 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