MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409090679 · doi:10.1109/mcse.2025.3557236

Do Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers Speak the Same Language?

2025· article· en· W4409090679 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

VenueComputing in Science & Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of ScienceOak Ridge National LaboratoryUT-BattelleAdvanced Scientific Computing ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSoftware engineeringSoftwareComputer scienceSoftware peer reviewSocial software engineeringEngineeringEngineering ethicsSoftware developmentSoftware constructionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and Software Engineering Researchers (SERs) often use different terminologies for similar concepts, creating communication challenges. To better understand these divergences, we have started investigating how SE fundamentals from the SER community are interpreted within the RSE community, identifying aligned concepts, knowledge gaps, and areas for potential adaptation. Our preliminary findings reveal opportunities for mutual learning and collaboration, and our systematic methodology for terminology mapping provides a foundation for a crowd-sourced extension and validation in the future.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.318 · 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