在博客中识别从业者的论点和证据:来自一项试点研究的见解

A. Williams, A. Rainer
{"title":"在博客中识别从业者的论点和证据:来自一项试点研究的见解","authors":"A. Williams, A. Rainer","doi":"10.1109/APSEC.2016.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: researchers have a limited understanding of how practitioners conceive of and use evidence. Objective: to investigate how to automatically identify practitioner arguments and evidence in a corpus of practitioner documents, and identify insights for further work. Method: we develop, apply and evaluate a preliminary process to identify practitioner arguments and factual stories, based on the presence of specific words, using a sample of 1,022 blog posts from a software practitioner's blog. Results: we identify unanswered questions relating to the process: selecting and scraping data, cleansing data, parsing components of arguments and stories, selecting the 'right' cases, and validating and interpreting the results. Conclusion: our work provides a foundation for more substantive research on identifying practitioners' evidence and arguments that, in turn, can support research in other areas e.g. evidence informed software practice.","PeriodicalId":339123,"journal":{"name":"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying Practitioners' Arguments and Evidence in Blogs: Insights from a Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"A. Williams, A. Rainer\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/APSEC.2016.056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: researchers have a limited understanding of how practitioners conceive of and use evidence. Objective: to investigate how to automatically identify practitioner arguments and evidence in a corpus of practitioner documents, and identify insights for further work. Method: we develop, apply and evaluate a preliminary process to identify practitioner arguments and factual stories, based on the presence of specific words, using a sample of 1,022 blog posts from a software practitioner's blog. Results: we identify unanswered questions relating to the process: selecting and scraping data, cleansing data, parsing components of arguments and stories, selecting the 'right' cases, and validating and interpreting the results. Conclusion: our work provides a foundation for more substantive research on identifying practitioners' evidence and arguments that, in turn, can support research in other areas e.g. evidence informed software practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":339123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2016.056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2016.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:研究人员对从业人员如何构思和使用证据的理解有限。目的:研究如何在从业者文档语料库中自动识别从业者论点和证据,并为进一步的工作确定见解。方法:我们开发、应用和评估一个初步的过程来识别从业者的论点和事实故事,基于特定词汇的存在,使用来自软件从业者博客的1022篇博客文章的样本。结果:我们识别与过程相关的未解决的问题:选择和抓取数据,清理数据,解析论点和故事的组成部分,选择“正确”的案例,验证和解释结果。结论:我们的工作为识别从业者的证据和论点提供了更实质性的研究基础,反过来,可以支持其他领域的研究,例如证据告知软件实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying Practitioners' Arguments and Evidence in Blogs: Insights from a Pilot Study
Background: researchers have a limited understanding of how practitioners conceive of and use evidence. Objective: to investigate how to automatically identify practitioner arguments and evidence in a corpus of practitioner documents, and identify insights for further work. Method: we develop, apply and evaluate a preliminary process to identify practitioner arguments and factual stories, based on the presence of specific words, using a sample of 1,022 blog posts from a software practitioner's blog. Results: we identify unanswered questions relating to the process: selecting and scraping data, cleansing data, parsing components of arguments and stories, selecting the 'right' cases, and validating and interpreting the results. Conclusion: our work provides a foundation for more substantive research on identifying practitioners' evidence and arguments that, in turn, can support research in other areas e.g. evidence informed software practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信