Identifying Community-Supported Technologies and Software Developments Concepts by K-means Clustering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working on technologies that have community sup-port is one of the most important factors in software development. Software developers often face difficulties during software devel-opment, and community support from other software developers help them significantly. This paper presents an approach based on K-mean clustering technique to identify the level of community support for software technologies and development concepts using Stack Overflow discussion forums. To test the approach, a case study was performed by gathering data from SO and preparing a dataset that contains over a million of Java developers’ questions. Then, K-mean clustering was applied to identify the community support levels. The goal is to find the best features that group community-supported software technologies and development concepts and identify the number of groups to determine the community support levels. Statistical error, clustering and classi-fication evaluation metrics were applied. The results indicate that the best features to formulate community supported technologies and development concept levels are Failure Rate and Wait Time. The results show that the approach identifies two groups of community supported and development concept levels based on the best silhouette index value of 97%. According to the results the majority of Java technologies and development concepts are labeled with less community supported technologies and development concepts (Cluster 2). Random Forest classifier was applied to indirectly evaluate the approach to detect the identified community support class. The result shows that RF classifier presents a good performance and shows high accuracy value of 99.49% which indicates that the identified groups improve the performance of the classifier. The approach can be utilized to assist software developers and researchers in utilizing the SO platform in developing SO-based recommendation systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it