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

William M. Evanco

dblp:10/4808 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
8ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 7 · 4 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
2 papers
Empirical software engineering · 92% Requirements engineering and software design · 8%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › experimental methodology
class size confounding
0.012003
Comments on "The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics" · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
object-oriented metrics
0.012003
Comments on "The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics" · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › defect prediction
defect prediction models
0.012003
Comments on "The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics" · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Empirical software engineering
software defect prediction
0.011992
Projecting Software Defects From Analyzing Ada Designs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1992

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

statistical modeling · 0.0multivariate analysis · 0.0static analysis · 0.0multivariate regression · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 State of the practice: An exploratory analysis of schedule estimation and software project success prediction
June M. Verner, William M. Evanco, Narciso Cerpa
Inf. Softw. Technol.2
2003 Predicting Software Development Project Outcomes
Rosina O. Weber, Michael Waller, June M. Verner, William M. Evanco
ICCBR4
2003 Comments on "The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics"
abstract
It has been proposed by El Emam et al. (ibid. vol.27 (7), 2001) that size should be taken into account as a confounding variable when validating object-oriented metrics. We take issue with this perspective since the ability to measure size does not temporally precede the ability to measure many of the object-oriented metrics that have been proposed. Hence, the condition that a confounding variable must occur causally prior to another explanatory variable is not met. In addition, when specifying multivariate models of defects that incorporate object-oriented metrics, entering size as an explanatory variable may result in misspecified models that lack internal consistency. Examples are given where this misspecification occurs.
William M. Evanco
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2001 The determinants of visibility of software engineering researchers
June M. Verner, William M. Evanco, Katherine W. McCain, Gregory W. Hislop, Vera J. Cole
J. Syst. Softw.2
1997 Poisson analyses of defects for small software components
William M. Evanco
J. Syst. Softw.1
1995 Modeling the effort to correct faults
William M. Evanco
J. Syst. Softw.1
1994 A model-based framework for the integration of software metrics
William M. Evanco, Robert Lacovara
J. Syst. Softw.1
1992 Projecting Software Defects From Analyzing Ada Designs
abstract
Models for projecting software defects from analyses of Ada designs are described. The research is motivated by the need for technology to analyze designs for their likely effect on software quality. The models predict defect density based on product and process characteristics. Product characteristics are extracted from a static analysis of Ada subsystems, focusing on context coupling, visibility, and the import-export of declarations. Process characteristics provide for effects of reuse level and extent of changes. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted with empirical data from industry/government-developed projects: 16 Ada subsystems totaling 149000 source lines of code. The resulting models explain 63-74% of the variation in defect density of the subsystems. Context coupling emerged as a consistently significant variable in the models.>
William W. Agresti, William M. Evanco
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2