MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285233275 · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2022.01306108

Identifying Community-Supported Technologies and Software Developments Concepts by K-means Clustering

2022· article· en· W4285233275 on OpenAlexaff
Farag Almansoury, Sègla Kpodjedo, Ghizlane El Boussaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisSoftwareSoftware developmentJavaData scienceData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and ApplicationsSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207