Researcher profile

Derek Robinson

Derek Robinson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Error Identification Strategies for Python Jupyter Notebooks

Computational notebooks -- such as Jupyter or Colab -- combine text and data analysis code. They have become ubiquitous in the world of data science and exploratory data analysis. Since these notebooks present a different programming paradigm than conventional IDE-driven programming, it is plausible that debugging in computational notebooks might also be different. More specifically, since creating notebooks blends domain knowledge, statistical analysis, and programming, the ways in which notebook users find and fix errors in these different forms might be different. In this paper, we present an exploratory, observational study on how Python Jupyter notebook users find and understand potential errors in notebooks. Through a conceptual replication of study design investigating the error identification strategies of R notebook users, we presented users with Python Jupyter notebooks pre-populated with common notebook errors -- errors rooted in either the statistical data analysis, the knowledge of domain concepts, or in the programming. We then analyzed the strategies our study participants used to find these errors and determined how successful each strategy was at identifying errors. Our findings indicate that while the notebook programming environment is different from the environments used for traditional programming, debugging strategies remain quite similar. It is our hope that the insights presented in this paper will help both notebook tool designers and educators make changes to improve how data scientists discover errors more easily in the notebooks they write.

preprint2022arXiv

Two Approaches to Survival Analysis of Open Source Python Projects

A recent study applied frequentist survival analysis methods to a subset of the Software Heritage Graph and determined which attributes of an OSS project contribute to its health. This paper serves as an exact replication of that study. In addition, Bayesian survival analysis methods were applied to the same dataset, and an additional project attribute was studied to serve as a conceptual replication. Both analyses focus on the effects of certain attributes on the survival of open-source software projects as measured by their revision activity. Methods such as the Kaplan-Meier estimator, Cox Proportional-Hazards model, and the visualization of posterior survival functions were used for each of the project attributes. The results show that projects which publish major releases, have repositories on multiple hosting services, possess a large team of developers, and make frequent revisions have a higher likelihood of survival in the long run. The findings were similar to the original study; however, a deeper look revealed quantitative inconsistencies.