Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nupoor Patil

dblp:222/5861 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.312018
Open source barriers to entry, revisited: a sociotechnical perspective · ICSE 2018
Empirical software engineering
open source software
0.312018
Open source barriers to entry, revisited: a sociotechnical perspective · ICSE 2018
Empirical software engineering › human factors in software engineering
socio-technical analysis
0.312018
Open source barriers to entry, revisited: a sociotechnical perspective · ICSE 2018
Collaborative and social computing › peer production
open source communities
0.112018
Open source barriers to entry, revisited: a sociotechnical perspective · ICSE 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

use case analysis · 0.7field study · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Open source barriers to entry, revisited: a sociotechnical perspective
abstract
Research has revealed that significant barriers exist when entering Open-Source Software (OSS) communities and that women disproportionately experience such barriers. However, this research has focused mainly on social/cultural factors, ignoring the environment itself --- the tools and infrastructure. To shed some light onto how tools and infrastructure might somehow factor into OSS barriers to entry, we conducted a field study with five teams of software professionals, who worked through five use-cases to analyze the tools and infrastructure used in their OSS projects. These software professionals found tool/infrastructure barriers in 7% to 71% of the use-case steps that they analyzed, most of which are tied to newcomer barriers that have been established in the literature. Further, over 80% of the barrier types they found include attributes that are biased against women.
Christopher J. Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill 0001, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, Margaret M. Burnett
ICSE8