search

LambdaConglomerate / x9115lam

2 stars 0 forks source link

Final Paper #42

Open ghost opened 8 years ago

ghost commented 8 years ago

I think we should start thinking about what we want to write in our final paper. Here is a link to Dr. Menzies' instructions. Look at the bottom under "Part4 (one big essay)".

I think we would be more comfortable with using Latex, so I'll grab the Latex format and add in the references to all the papers we read so far and put it in the reading folder.

Also, make sure you read Paper 9 since I think we should submit our summary for it soon.

meneal commented 8 years ago

sounds good. I hope to be able to get to this tomorrow. We'll see though. Depends on how things go with my R project.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Joseph Sankar notifications@github.com wrote:

I think we should start thinking about what we want to write in our final paper. Here is a link https://github.com/txt/mase/blob/master/READING.md to Dr. Menzies' instructions. Look at the bottom under "Part4 (one big essay)".

I think we would be more comfortable with using Latex, so I'll grab the Latex format and add in the references to all the papers we read so far and put it in the reading folder.

Also, make sure you read Paper 9 since I think we should submit our summary for it soon.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LambdaConglomerate/x9115lam/issues/42.

ghost commented 8 years ago

I just pushed the Latex template and made some minor changes. I added all 8 papers we summarized so far to the references.bib. We need at least 20 references, so we should also start looking for related papers to the 8 we have so far. We can also add papers we think should be connected but aren't.

I have an exam tomorrow so I'll work on this some more tomorrow evening/night.

ghost commented 8 years ago

I found a paper that was published in 2008 that reviews software fault prediction studies. We are supposed to summarize the procession of research from 2008-2015, but I think this paper can give us more historical context to better evaluate the rest of papers.

Since we'll need to add so many papers, I can create a wiki page with links to all the papers.

Let me know if this is okay or if you want to approach this differently. I want to get started on writing this tonight.

meneal commented 8 years ago

I think that's fantastic man, if you want to get started.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Joseph Sankar notifications@github.com wrote:

I found a paper http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Banu_Diri/publication/223639092_A_systematic_review_of_software_fault_prediction_studies/links/02e7e52b29366994e8000000.pdf that was published in 2008 that reviews software fault prediction studies. We are supposed to summarize the procession of research from 2008-2015, but I think this paper can give us more historical context to better evaluate the rest of papers.

Since we'll need to add so many papers, I can create a wiki page with links to all the papers.

Let me know if this is okay or if you want to approach this differently. I want to get started on writing this tonight.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LambdaConglomerate/x9115lam/issues/42#issuecomment-164063601 .

meneal commented 8 years ago

What sections do you guys think we should have for this paper? I was thinking past, present, future.

aisobran commented 8 years ago

What would you put in each section? It seems like everything we review would be past while all of future would be our recommendations. What would we put in the present?

aisobran commented 8 years ago

Maybe we could discuss each paper in it's own sections and then possibly combine the sections based on similarities.

ghost commented 8 years ago

I think that's a good idea. The assignment cites 2008-2015, so we could include the present and our recommendations for future research. It depends on which papers we reference too.

I'm working on adding paragraphs for the remainder of the papers we summarized. I'll get that finished in a few minutes.

ghost commented 8 years ago

Just pushed the remainder of the related work section. The way I'm understanding it, we need to have a reference for each of the 20 papers in the related work section. That shouldn't be too difficult once we find them.

I think our main section should be an analysis of those eight papers that Menzies mentioned and how they improved/failed to improve the work of earlier research. And then we can conclude with some recommendations for future research. What do you all think?

aisobran commented 8 years ago

That's a good idea.

meneal commented 8 years ago

Sounds good to me.

On Sunday, December 13, 2015, Alexander Sobran notifications@github.com wrote:

That's a good idea.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LambdaConglomerate/x9115lam/issues/42#issuecomment-164310813 .

ghost commented 8 years ago

Should we put recommendations for future research within each category, or put them all at the end?