Proceedings of the Third C* Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The C* Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (C3S2E) was established in 2008. C3S2E 2010 is the third annual meeting in the C3S2E conference series and is held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, during May 19-20, 2010. The conference aims to address the need of the academic community in computer science and software engineering. It brings together academics, government and industry professionals to discuss recent progress and challenges in a broad range of areas in the field of computer science and software engineering such as algorithms and theory, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, computer architecture, computer graphics, computer security, computer vision, data mining, databases, image processing, information retrieval, machine learning, as well as software engineering. C3S2E 2010 also serves as a platform for theoreticians and practitioners to exchange their original research ideas on academic or application aspects of computing and engineering of software systems, present their new findings on theoretical or practical aspects of computer science and software engineering, share their experiences on integrating new technologies into products and applications, discuss their work on applying computing and software engineering to real-life situations, describe their development and operations of challenging computing related systems, and identify unsolved challenges. Although it is the third time C3S2E is held, this comprehensive conference has grown from a Canadian conference into an international conference. For C3S2E 2010, we continue to keep our tradition for inviting international experts in various areas of computer science and software engineering to join our team of international program committee. As a result, our Program Committee consists of professionals from different parts of the world including Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Portugal, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, and UK. This committee has done an excellent job in finishing the single-blind review and on-line double-blind debate processes in record time. On average, about 90% of reviews were submitted by the due date and about 3.67 reviews were received for each paper. In terms of submissions, we have attracted many high-quality papers submitted by authors globally. The paper selection process was thorough and competitive. On average, each paper was refereed by at least three reviewers, and about 18% of submissions were accepted as full research papers. This year, we have an intensive program that spans over two days. In addition to research papers and student posters, we also include position papers, which allow authors to give their opinions and vision on exploring new concepts and research directions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,139 | 0,073 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».