CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

An industrial case study of Coman's automated task detection algorithm: What Worked, What Didn't, and Why

Zou, Lijie, Godfrey, Michael W.·2012·2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)
DOI 10.1109/icsm.2012.6405247
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Programmers need explicit tool support for software maintenance tasks, and a prerequisite for this is an understanding of where the boundaries between distinct tasks lie. Asking developers to indicate manually when they switch tasks is disruptive to their normal work flow, so researchers have sought ways to infer task boundaries automatically based on the content of the interaction histories with the IDE. Coman previously reported a fully automated algorithm that achieved 80% accuracy in a lab validation study. In this paper, we evaluate the use of this algorithm within an industrial setting. We found two problems: first, a large number of the tasks identified are in fact only sessions or subparts of a larger task; second, the demonstrable effects of interruptions are not considered. We argue that the problem of task boundary detection consists of two sub-problems: first, detecting task sessions; and second, linking task sessions. Coman's algorithm only partially addresses the first, and ignores the second.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icsm.2012.6405247

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Zou and Godfrey found that the algorithm detects many more task switches than the ones self-reported by the participants with an error of more than 70 percent.

    “found that the algorithm detects many more task switches than the ones self-reported by the participants with an error of more than 70 percent.”

    From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

  • Only little research has been performed on task switch detection in the software development domain and all of this research has focused solely on software development tasks within the IDE.

    “Only little research has been performed on task switch detection in the software development domain and all of this research has focused solely on software development tasks within the IDE.”

    From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zou, L., & Godfrey, M. W.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
ORCID
Godfrey, Michael W.
Venue
2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-09
Pages
6-14
ISSN
1063-6773 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/icsm.2012.6405247
OpenAlex
W2095362727
Cited by
10
References
16
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
software maintenance, integrated development environment, interruptions, industrial evaluation

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