Rise of the Androids: The Reflection of Developers’ Characteristics in Computerized Systems
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
Abstract Due to their speed and accuracy, computerized decision‐making and data‐analysis systems are often perceived to be close to the ideal of unbounded rationality. Challenging this perception, this study explores the possibility that computerized systems reflect the individual characteristics of the developers who have designed and realized them. Through the analysis of interviews with high‐frequency trading system developers and a survey of software developers working in diverse industries, it shows that developers’ characteristics, which have been related to bounded rationality (e.g. experience and expertise), influence their codes’ performance and errors. Computer codes also reflect the personal circumstances of the developers (e.g. deadlines and stress), and their values. However, whereas some developers value code characteristics that are congruent with the ideal of unbounded rationality, including speed and accuracy, others aim to achieve characteristics that could be incongruent with it (e.g. code readability and modularity). Developers’ roles and organizational practices, such as testing procedures and code reviews, limit the expression of their characteristics in their codes. Nevertheless, developers can be often identified by reading the codes. Highlighting that developers transfer some of their characteristics to their codes, this study identifies elements of bounded rationality in decision‐making systems and extends organizational decision‐making research.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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