Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practitioners use Infrastructure as Code (IaC) scripts to efficiently configure IT infrastructures through machine-readable definition files. However, during the development of these scripts, some code patterns or deployment choices may lead to sustainability issues, like inefficient resource utilization or redundant provisioning. We call this type of patterns sustainability smells. These inefficiencies pose significant environmental and financial challenges, given the growing scale of cloud computing. This research focuses on Terraform, a widely adopted IaC tool. Our study involves defining seven sustainability smells and validating them through a survey with 19 IaC practitioners. We utilized a dataset of 28,327 Terraform scripts from 395 open-source repositories. We performed a detailed qualitative analysis of a randomly sampled $\mathbf{1, 8 6 0}$ Terraform scripts from the original dataset to identify code patterns that correspond to the sustainability smells and used the other 26,467 Terraform scripts to study the prevalence of the defined sustainability smells. Our results indicate varying prevalence rates of these smells across the dataset. The most prevalent smell is NonModular Configurations, which appears in $9.67 \%$ of the scripts. Additionally, our findings highlight the complexity of conducting root cause analysis for sustainability issues, as these smells often arise from a confluence of script structures, configuration choices, and deployment contexts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".