复制可以改善先前的结果:对拉请求接受的GitHub研究

Di Chen, Kathryn T. Stolee, T. Menzies
{"title":"复制可以改善先前的结果:对拉请求接受的GitHub研究","authors":"Di Chen, Kathryn T. Stolee, T. Menzies","doi":"10.1109/ICPC.2019.00037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crowdsourcing and data mining can be used to effectively reduce the effort associated with the partial replication and enhancement of qualitative studies. For example, in a primary study, other researchers explored factors influencing the fate of GitHub pull requests using an extensive qualitative analysis of 20 pull requests. Guided by their findings, we mapped some of their qualitative insights onto quantitative questions. To determine how well their findings generalize, we collected much more data (170 additional pull requests from 142 GitHub projects). Using crowdsourcing, that data was augmented with subjective qualitative human opinions about how pull requests extended the original issue. The crowd's answers were then combined with quantitative features and, using data mining, used to build a predictor for whether code would be merged. That predictor was far more accurate than the one built from the primary study's qualitative factors (F1=90 vs 68%), illustrating the value of a mixed-methods approach and replication to improve prior results. To test the generality of this approach, the next step in future work is to conduct other studies that extend qualitative studies with crowdsourcing and data mining.","PeriodicalId":6853,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","volume":"3 1","pages":"179-190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Replication Can Improve Prior Results: A GitHub Study of Pull Request Acceptance\",\"authors\":\"Di Chen, Kathryn T. Stolee, T. Menzies\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICPC.2019.00037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Crowdsourcing and data mining can be used to effectively reduce the effort associated with the partial replication and enhancement of qualitative studies. For example, in a primary study, other researchers explored factors influencing the fate of GitHub pull requests using an extensive qualitative analysis of 20 pull requests. Guided by their findings, we mapped some of their qualitative insights onto quantitative questions. To determine how well their findings generalize, we collected much more data (170 additional pull requests from 142 GitHub projects). Using crowdsourcing, that data was augmented with subjective qualitative human opinions about how pull requests extended the original issue. The crowd's answers were then combined with quantitative features and, using data mining, used to build a predictor for whether code would be merged. That predictor was far more accurate than the one built from the primary study's qualitative factors (F1=90 vs 68%), illustrating the value of a mixed-methods approach and replication to improve prior results. To test the generality of this approach, the next step in future work is to conduct other studies that extend qualitative studies with crowdsourcing and data mining.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"179-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2019.00037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2019.00037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

众包和数据挖掘可以有效地减少与部分复制和增强定性研究相关的努力。例如,在一项初步研究中,其他研究人员通过对20个拉取请求进行广泛的定性分析,探索了影响GitHub拉取请求命运的因素。根据他们的发现,我们将他们的一些定性见解映射到定量问题上。为了确定他们的发现有多普遍,我们收集了更多的数据(来自142个GitHub项目的170个额外的拉取请求)。通过众包,这些数据被人类主观的、定性的关于拉取请求如何扩展原始问题的意见所增强。然后,将人群的答案与定量特征结合起来,并使用数据挖掘来构建一个预测器,以预测代码是否会合并。该预测器远比从主要研究的定性因素建立的预测器更准确(F1=90 vs 68%),说明了混合方法方法和复制的价值,以改善先前的结果。为了测试这种方法的普遍性,未来工作的下一步是进行其他研究,用众包和数据挖掘扩展定性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Replication Can Improve Prior Results: A GitHub Study of Pull Request Acceptance
Crowdsourcing and data mining can be used to effectively reduce the effort associated with the partial replication and enhancement of qualitative studies. For example, in a primary study, other researchers explored factors influencing the fate of GitHub pull requests using an extensive qualitative analysis of 20 pull requests. Guided by their findings, we mapped some of their qualitative insights onto quantitative questions. To determine how well their findings generalize, we collected much more data (170 additional pull requests from 142 GitHub projects). Using crowdsourcing, that data was augmented with subjective qualitative human opinions about how pull requests extended the original issue. The crowd's answers were then combined with quantitative features and, using data mining, used to build a predictor for whether code would be merged. That predictor was far more accurate than the one built from the primary study's qualitative factors (F1=90 vs 68%), illustrating the value of a mixed-methods approach and replication to improve prior results. To test the generality of this approach, the next step in future work is to conduct other studies that extend qualitative studies with crowdsourcing and data mining.
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