MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036006336

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPER LEARNING RESOURCES by

2012· article· en· W7036006336 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsDocumentationTraceabilityInternal documentationTechnical documentationSoftware documentationCode (set theory)Perspective (graphical)Interview
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developer documentation helps developers learn frameworks and libraries, yet developing and maintaining accurate documentation require considerable effort and resources.Contributors who work on developer documentation need to at least take into account the project's code and the support needs of users.Although related, the documentation, the code, and the support needs evolve and are not always synchronized: for example, new features in the code are not always documented and questions repeatedly asked by users on support channels such as mailing lists may not be addressed by the documentation.Our thesis is that by studying how the relationships between documentation, code, and users' support needs are created and maintained, we can identify documentation improvements and automatically recommend some of these improvements to contributors.In this dissertation, we ( 1) studied the perspective of documentation contributors by interviewing open source contributors and users, (2) developed a technique that automatically generates the model of documentation, code, and users' support needs, (3) devised a technique that recovers fine-grained traceability links between the learning resources and the code, (4) investigated strategies to infer high-level documentation structures based on the traceability links, and (5) devised a recommendation system that uses the traceability links and the high-level documentation structures to suggest adaptive changes to the documentation when the underlying code evolves.i agement throughout the journey that led to this thesis.My supervisor, Martin, has always been ready to review my work quickly and to provide insightful advice, even for the 100th revision of a paper when separated by multiple timezones, a sabbatical, and countless attention-seeking tasks.He never stopped at "good enough" and always raised the bar which led to research work that I am particularly proud of.Thank you Martin.It has been a great pleasure to work with my friend and mentor at IBM Research, Harold.I learned a lot from our research discussions, from his kindness too, and I thank him for his advice in the toughest moments.Conducting a qualitative study and interviewing real people on the phone for the first time can be scary if you are used to quantitative studies and totally afraid to pick up the phone in general.I thank Rachel for helping me improve my interviewing techniques and analysis skills, and for giving me confidence in the qualitative work I was doing.I am thankful to the contributors of open source projects, senior software engineers, and technical writers who accepted to squeeze an interview with me in their busy schedule.I never expected to be part of a family barbecue (over the phone), to speak with a groom a day after his wedding or to hear so many war stories from technical writers.What I learned from these interviews will be useful for the rest of my career.iii My colleagues, Annie, David, Ekwa, and Tristan, were always available to bounce ideas with me and review my papers

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207