MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390533486 · doi:10.1109/ms.2023.3347875

Polyglot Software Development: Wait, What?

2024· article· en· W4390533486 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

VenueIEEE Software · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyglotComputer scienceOperationalizationSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringSoftware deploymentSoftwareData scienceProgramming languageEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of polyglot software development refers to the fact that most software projects nowadays rely on multiple languages to deal with widely different concerns, from core business concerns to user interface, security, and deployment concerns among many others. Many different wordings around this notion have been proposed in the literature, with little understanding of their differences. In this article, we propose a concise and unambiguous definition of polyglot software development including a conceptual model and its illustration on a well-known, open-source project. We further characterize the techniques used for the specification and operationalization of polyglot software development with a feature model, concentrating on polyglot programming. We conclude the article outlining the many challenges and perspectives raised by polyglot software development.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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