Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 612

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What are developers talking about? An analysis of topics and trends in Stack Overflow

Barua, Anton, Thomas, Stephen W., Hassan, Ahmed E.·2014·Empirical Software Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s10664-012-9231-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-012-9231-y

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Adamic LA, Zhang J, Bakshy E, Ackerman MS (2008) Knowledge sharing and Yahoo answers: everyone knows something. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 665–674 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bajracharya S, Lopes C (2012) Analyzing and mining a code search engine usage log. Empir Software Eng 17:424–466 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Barnard K, Duygulu P, Forsyth D, De Freitas N, Blei DM, Jordan MI (2003) Matching words and pictures. J Mach Learn Res 3:1107–1135
  4. Becher M, Freiling FC, Hoffmann J, Holz T, Uellenbeck S, Wolf C (2011) Mobile security catching up? Revealing the nuts and bolts of the security of mobile devices. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp 96–111 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Blei DM, Lafferty J (2009) Topic models. Text mining: theory and applications. Taylor and Francis, London
  6. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022
  7. Cox D, Stuart A (1955) Some quick sign tests for trend in location and dispersion. Biometrika 42(1–2):80–95 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Díaz-Herrera JL (2005) Computing & information sciences: the discipline, careers, and future directions. In: ACM southeast regional conference · doi:10.1145/1167350.1167354
  9. Dugan RF (2004) Performance lies my professor told me: the case for teaching software performance engineering to undergraduates. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on software and performance, pp 37–48 · doi:10.1145/974044.974050
  10. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Boston
  11. Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intelli PAMI-6(6):721–741 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Grant S, Cordy JR (2010) Estimating the optimal number of latent concepts in source code analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th international working conference on source code analysis and manipulation, pp 65–74 · DOI
  13. Gyöngyi Z, Koutrika G, Pedersen J, Garcia-Molina H (2008) Questioning Yahoo! Answers. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on question answering on the Web · DOI
  14. Hall D, Jurafsky D, Manning CD (2008) Studying the history of ideas using topic models. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 363–371 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hassan AE (2008) The road ahead for mining software repositories. In: Frontiers of software maintenance, pp 48–57 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hindle A, Godfrey MW, Holt RC (2009) What’s hot and what’s not: windowed developer topic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software maintenance, pp 339–348 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2009.5306310
  17. Kuhn A, Ducasse S, Girba T (2007) Semantic clustering: identifying topics in source code. Inf Softw Technol 49(3):230–243 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Linstead E, Lopes C, Baldi P (2008) An application of latent Dirichlet allocation to analyzing software evolution. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on machine learning and applications, pp 813–818 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2008.47
  19. Mamykina L, Manoim B, Mittal M, Hripcsak G, Hartmann B (2011) Design lessons from the fastest Q&A site in the west. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 2857–2866 · DOI · Paper page
  20. McGraw G (2002) Building secure software: better than protecting bad software. IEEE Softw 19(6):57–58 · doi:10.1109/ms.2002.1049391
  21. Mei Q, Shen X, Zhai C (2007) Automatic labeling of multinomial topic models. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 490–499 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Neuhaus S, Zimmermann T (2010) Security trend analysis with CVE topic models. In: Proceedings of the 21st international symposium on software reliability engineering, pp 111–120 · doi:10.1109/issre.2010.53
  23. Pagano D, Maalej W (2012) How do open source communities blog? Empirical Software Engineering, Springer Netherlands, pp 1–35 · DOI
  24. Porter MF (1997) An algorithm for suffix stripping. In: Readings in information retrieval. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 313–316
  25. Pressman RS (2005) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach. McGraw-Hill
  26. Shah C, Pomerantz J (2010) Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp 411–418 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Tan C, Wang Y, Lee C (2002) The use of bigrams to enhance text categorization. Inf Process Manag 38:529–546 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Thomas SW (2012) Mining software repositories with topic models. Tech. Rep. 2012-586, School of Computing, Queen’s University · DOI
  29. Thomas SW, Adams B, Hassan AE, Blostein D (2010) Validating the use of topic models for software evolution. In: Proceedings of the 10th international working conference on source code analysis and manipulation, pp 55–64 · DOI
  30. Thomas SW, Adams B, Hassan AE, Blostein D (2011) Modeling the evolution of topics in source code histories. In: Proceedings of the 8th working conference on mining software repositories, pp 173–182 · DOI
  31. Thomas SW, Adams B, Hassan AE, Blostein D (2012) Studying software evolution using topic models. Sci. Comput. Programming. doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2012.08.003 · DOI
  32. Treude C, Barzilay O, Storey M (2011) How do programmers ask and answer questions on the web? In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on software engineering, pp 804–807 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Wallach HM, Murray I, Salakhutdinov R, Mimno D (2009) Evaluation methods for topic models. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on machine learning, pp 1105–1112 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 612

Metadata

Authors
Barua, A., Thomas, S. W., & Hassan, A. E.
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-11-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
619-654
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
DOI
10.1007/s10664-012-9231-y
OpenAlex
W2056894403
Cited by
612
References
5
FWCI
53.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What are developers talking about? An analysis of topics and trends in Stack Overflow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10664-012-9231-y
The paper
Barua, A., Thomas, S. W., & Hassan, A. E. (2014). What are developers talking about? An analysis of topics and trends in Stack Overflow. Empirical Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9231-y

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.