MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404317069 · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3470368

Scoping Software Engineering for AI: The TSE Perspective

2024· article· en· W4404317069 on OpenAlex
Sebastián Uchitel, Marsha Chećhik, Massimiliano Di Penta, Bram Adams, Nazareno Aguirre, Gabriele Bavota, Domenico Bianculli, Kelly Blincoe, Ana Cláudia Rocha Cavalcanti, Yvonne Dittrich, Filomena Ferrucci, Rashina Hoda, LiGuo Huang, David Lo, Michael R. Lyu, Lei Ma, Jonathan I. Maletic, Leonardo Mariani, Collin McMillan, Tim Menzies, Martin Monperrus, Ana Moreno, Nachiappan Nagappan, Liliana Pasquale, Patrizio Pelliccione, Michael Pradel, Rahul Purandare, Sukyoung Ryu, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Alexander Serebrenik, Jun Sun, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Christoph Treude, Manuel Wimmer, Yingfei Xiong, Tao Yue, Andy Zaidman, Tao Zhang, Hao Zhong

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 Transactions on Software Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringPerspective (graphical)Software developmentSoftwareProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), and in particular in Machine Learning (ML), are introducing profound changes to scholarly submissions across publication venues, affecting in particular the contributions that are being submitted to Software Engineering (SE) conferences and journals. In this context, it is not always clear whether manuscripts submitted to SE venues under the umbrella term SE for AI are indeed relevant to SE, in the sense that they explicitly contain contributions to the SE body of knowledge. This leads to recurring discussions on whether certain AI-related submissions are appropriate to SE venues, or should instead be submitted to other journals and conferences, including AI or ML-specific ones. In this editorial, we discuss the kinds of AI-related contributions that are a better fit-and a less good fit-for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.548
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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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