The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human factors comparison of a procedural and a nonprocedural query language
Open accessAbstract
Two experiments testing the ability of subjects to write queries in two different query languages were run. The two languages, SQL and TABLET, differ primarily in their procedurality; both languages use the relational data model, and their Halstead levels are similar. Constructs in the languages which do not affect their procedurality are identical. The two languages were learned by the experimental subjects almost exclusively from manuals presenting the same examples and problems ordered identically for both languages. The results of the experiments show that subjects using the more procedural language wrote difficult queries better than subjects using the less procedural language. The results of the experiments are also used to compare corresponding constructs in the two languages and to recommend improvements for these constructs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A relational model of data for large shared data banks
Codd, E. F. (1970) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/362384.362685 · Cited by 5,547
Metadata
- Authors
- Welty, C., & Stemple, D. W.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Database Systems
- Published
- 1981-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 626-649
- ISSN
- 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-4644
- OpenAlex
- W1964523235
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.
