1,721,086 research outputs found
Tool-Supported Requirements Prioritization. Comparing the AHP and CBRank Methods
No full textRequirements prioritization aims at identifying the most important requirements for a software system, a crucial step when planning for system releases and deciding which requirements to implement in each release. Several prioritization methods and supporting tools have been proposed so far. How to evaluate their properties, with the aim of supporting the selection of the most appropriate method for a specific project, is considered a relevant question. In this paper we present an empirical study aiming at evaluating two state-of the-art tool-supported requirements prioritization methods, AHP and CBRank. We focus on three measures: the ease of use, the time-consumption and the accuracy. The experiment has been conducted with 23 experienced subjects on a set of 20 requirements from a real project. Results indicate that for the first two characteristics CBRank overcomes AHP, while for the accuracy AHP performs better than CBRank, even if the resulting ranks from the two methods are very similar. The majority of the users found CBRank the “overall best” method
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in Use Case and Tropos: Results from a family of experiments
No full textContext
Over the years, several modeling languages for requirements have been proposed. These languages employ different conceptual approaches, including scenario-based and goal-oriented ones. Empirical studies providing evidence about requirements model comprehensibility are rare, especially when addressing languages that belong to different modeling approaches.
Objective
This work aims to compare the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in different but comparable modeling approaches from a requirements analysts’ perspective. In particular, in this paper we compare the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in two visual modeling languages: Use Case, which is scenario-based, and Tropos, which exploits goal-oriented modeling. We further compare the effort required for comprehending the different models, and the derived productivity in each case.
Method
Requirements model comprehensibility is measured here in the context of three types of tasks that analysts usually perform, namely mapping between textual description and the model elements, reading and understanding the model irrespectively of the original textual description, and modifying the model. This experimental evaluation has been conducted within a family of controlled experiments aiming at comparing the comprehensibility of Use Case and Tropos requirements models. Three runs of the experiment were performed, including a first experiment and two replications, involving 79 subjects overall (all of which were information systems students). The data for each experiment was separately analyzed, followed by a meta-analysis of the three experiments.
Results
The experimental results show that Tropos models seem to be more comprehensible with respect to the three types of requirements analysis tasks, although more time consuming than Use Case models.
Conclusions
Measuring model comprehensibility by means of controlled experiments is feasible and provides a basis for comparing Tropos and Use Case models, although these languages belong to different modeling approaches. Specifically, Tropos outperformed Use Case in terms of comprehensibility, but required more effort leading to a similar productivity of the two languages
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
