MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393213147 · doi:10.1145/3641822.3641865

"How do people decide?": A Model for Software Library Selection

2024· preprint· en· W4393213147 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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)Computer scienceReuseSoftwareGrounded theorySoftware engineeringSoftware developmentWorld Wide WebKnowledge managementData scienceEngineeringSociologyArtificial intelligenceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern-day software development is often facilitated by the reuse of third-party software libraries. Despite the significant effort to understand the factors contributing to library selection, it is relatively unknown how the libraries are selected and what tools are still needed to support the selection process. Using Straussian grounded theory, we conducted and analyzed the interviews of 24 professionals across the world and derived a model of library selection process which is governed by six selection patterns (i.e., rules). The model draws from marketing theory and lays the groundwork for the development of a library selection tool which captures the technical and non-technical aspects developers consider.

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), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.588
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 communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpen Source Software InnovationsFrench-language works237,207