Hidden Populations in Software Engineering: Challenges, Lessons Learned, and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing emphasis on studying equity, diversity, and inclusion within software engineering has amplified the need to explore hidden populations within this field. Exploring hidden populations becomes important to obtain invaluable insights into the experiences, challenges, and perspectives of underrepresented groups in software engineering and, therefore, devise strategies to make the software industry more diverse. However, studying these hidden populations presents multifaceted challenges, including the complexities associated with identifying and engaging participants due to their marginalized status. In this paper, we discuss our experiences and lessons learned while conducting multiple studies involving hidden populations in software engineering. We emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing these challenges within the software engineering research community to foster a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of diverse populations of software professionals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.112 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".