Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Carl W. Doerflinger
dblp:97/349
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1985
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author
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 |
Requirements engineering and software design · 62% Empirical software engineering · 38% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process measurement |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Empirical software engineering
software metrics |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Empirical software engineering
software project management |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
dynamic variables · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic VariablesabstractThis paper describes research conducted by the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) on the use of dynamic variables as a tool to monitor software development. The intent of the project is to identify project independent measures which may be used in a management tool for monitoring software development. This study examines several Fortran projects with similar profiles. The staff was experienced in developing these types of projects. The projects developed serve similar functions. Because these projects are similar we believe some underlying relationships exist that are invariant between the projects. These relationships, once well defined, may be used to compare the development of different projects to determine whether they are evolving the same way previous projects in this environment evolved. Carl W. Doerflinger, Victor R. Basili |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |