/pdf/semi-supervised-learning-literature-survey-4ccxy3rmmj.pdf

Semi-Supervised Learning Literature Survey

* Starting from Need* Evolution of the Toyota Production System* Further Development* Genealogy of the Toyota Production System* The True Intention of the Ford System* Surviving the Low-Growth Period

Toyota production system : beyond large-scale production

Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software development practices

Systematic reviews and systematic maps represent powerful tools to identify, collect, evaluate and summarise primary research pertinent to a specific research question or topic in a highly standardised and reproducible manner. Even though they are seen as the “gold standard” when synthesising primary research, systematic reviews and maps are typically resource-intensive and complex activities. Thus, managing the conduct and reporting of such reviews can become a time consuming and challenging task. This paper introduces the open access online tool CADIMA, which was developed through a collaboration between the Julius Kuhn-Institut and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in order to increase the efficiency of the evidence synthesis process and facilitate reporting of all activities to maximise methodological rigour. Furthermore, we analyse how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing software designed for the purposes of systematic review management. We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process; (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences; (3) allow for offline data extraction; and, (4) support working as a review team.

/pdf/online-tools-supporting-the-conduct-and-reporting-of-4rufseshwx.pdf

Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools

Abstraction and specification in program development

An electronic control system for a vehicle and an associated method of dynamically conforming a vehicle operation recommendation to an environment external to a vehicle are provided. Input parameters relating to the environment external to the vehicle are received. The vehicle operation recommendation is then adjusted based on the input parameters of the environment. The vehicle operation recommendation is then delivered to an interface of the vehicle. The adjustment conforms the vehicle operation recommendation to the environment to alert an operator of the vehicle of environmental conditions. The adjusted vehicle operation recommendation identifies a suggested manner of operating a vehicle control to account for the environment.

Electronic control system and associated methodology of dynamically conforming a vehicle operation

The Department of Information Systems, Statistics and Management Science, prediction of software defects and defect patterns is and will continue to be a critically important software evolution research topic. This study presents a time series analysis of multi-organizational multi-project defects reported during ongoing software evolution efforts. Using data from monthly defect reports for eight open source software projects over five years, this study builds and tests time series models for each sampled project. The resulting model accounts for the ripple effects of defect detection and correction by modeling the autocorrelation of code defect data. The autoregressive integrated moving average model (0,1,1) was found to hold for all sampled projects and thus provide a basis for both descriptive and predictive software defect analysis that is computationally efficient, comprehensible, and easy to apply. The model may be used to evaluate and compare the reliability of candidate software solutions, and to facilitate planning for software evolution budget and time allocation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Modeling software evolution defects: a time series approach

Pair programming purportedly delivers quality code with little productivity loss. The authors' field study, outside the pair programming environment, shows that two-person teams working independently are more productive than those working concurrently; agile methods may overcome inherent productivity losses of concurrent development. This research contrasts starkly with our field study findings. We decided to reexamine our earlier productivity data from teams of two and ask: Would our previous findings of concurrent-work productivity loss be reversed if we look only at programming pairs rather than teams of all sizes? If so, we could conclude that pairs are naturally more productive than larger teams, regardless of the collaborative process. If not, we could conclude that the collaboration mechanisms prescribed in pair programming might overcome a natural loss of productivity from concurrent work. We offer these findings and their implications as a benchmark against which we might measure the potential of pair programming practices.

A field study of developer pairs: productivity impacts and implications

Context: With the increasing popularity of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process, there is also an increasing need for tool support. Objective:The goal of this work was to consult the software engineering researchers who conduct SLRs to identify and prioritize the necessary SLR tool features. Method: To gather information required to address this goal, we invited SLR authors to participate in an interactive 2?h workshop structured around the Nominal Group Technique. Results: The workshop outcomes indicated that Search & Selection and Collaboration are the two highest priority tool features. The results also showed that most of the high-priority features are not well-supported in current tools. Conclusion: These results support and extend the results of prior work. SLR tool authors can use these findings to guide future development efforts.

/pdf/identification-of-slr-tool-needs-results-of-a-community-1fun9b8gd5.pdf

Identification of SLR tool needs - results of a community workshop

Context Even with the increasing use of Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) in software engineering (SE), there are still a number of barriers faced by SLR authors. These barriers increase the cost of conducting SLRs. Objective For many of these barriers, appropriate tool support could reduce their impact. In this paper, we use interactions with the SLR community in SE to identify and prioritize a set of requirements for SLR tooling infrastructure. Method This paper analyzes and combines the results from three studies on SLR process barriers and SLR tool requirements to produce a prioritized list of functional requirements for SLR tool support. Using this list of requirements, we perform a feature analysis of the current SLR support tools to identify requirements that are supported as well as identify the need for additional tooling infrastructure. Results The analysis resulted in a list 112 detailed requirements (consolidated into a set of composite requirements) that SE community desires in SLR support tools. The requirements span all the phases of the SLR process. The results show that, while recent tools cover more of the requirements, there are a number of high-priority requirements that are not yet fully covered by any of the existing tools. Conclusion The existing set of SLR tools do not cover all the requirements posed by the community. The list of requirements in this paper is useful for tool developers and researchers wishing to provide support to the SLR community with SE.

Vision for SLR tooling infrastructure: Prioritizing value-added requirements

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

David P. Hale

Author Tools

Chat about Author