1. Reuters-21578, Distribution 1.0.http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/reuters21578/reuters21578.html

2. Baddeley, A.: Recent developments in working memory. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.8(2), 234–238 (1998)

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Baddeley, A.: Working memory and language: an overview. J. Commun. Disord.36(3), 189–208 (2003)

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Baysal, O., Kononenko, O., Holmes, R., Godfrey, M.W.: The influence of non-technical factors on code review. In: 2013 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), pp. 122–131, October 2013

   Google Scholar 

5. Beller, M., Bacchelli, A., Zaidman, A., Juergens, E.: Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix? In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, New York, NY, USA, pp. 202–211. ACM, New York (2014)

   Google Scholar 

6. Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly Media Inc, Sebastopol (2009)

   MATH  Google Scholar 

7. Bosu, A., Carver, J.C.: Peer code review to prevent security vulnerabilities: an empirical evaluation. In: 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Software Security and Reliability Companion, pp. 229–230, June 2013

   Google Scholar 

8. Bosu, A., Greiler, M., Bird, C.: Characteristics of useful code reviews: an empirical study at microsoft. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 146–156, May 2015

   Google Scholar 

9. Bosu, A., Carver, J.C., Hafiz, M., Hilley, P., Janni, D.: Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2014, New York, NY, pp. 257–268. ACM, New York (2014)

   Google Scholar 

10. Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S.J., Herman, R., Covington, M.A.: Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behav. Res. Methods40(2), 540–545 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Chawla, N.V., Bowyer, K.W., Hall, L.O., Kegelmeyer, W.P.: SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res.16, 321–357 (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

12. Chomsky, N.: Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague (1957)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

13. Chromium: Chromium OS developer’s guide (2017).https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-guide

14. Ciolkowski, M., Laitenberger, O., Biffl, S.: Software reviews: the state of the practice. IEEE Software20(6), 46–51 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Czerwonka, J., Greiler, M., Tilford, J.: Code reviews do not find bugs: how the current code review best practice slows us down. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, vol. 2, pp. 27–28. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2015).http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2819009.2819015

16. Edmundson, A., Holtkamp, B., Rivera, E., Finifter, M., Mettler, A., Wagner, D.: An empirical study on the effectiveness of security code review. In: Jürjens, J., Livshits, B., Scandariato, R. (eds.) ESSoS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7781, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36563-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

17. Francis, W.N., Kucera, H.: A standard corpus of present-day edited American English, for use with digital computers. Coll. Engl.26(4), 267 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. Frazier, L.: Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty, D.R., Karttunen, L., Zwicky, A.M. (eds.) Natural Language Parsing, pp. 129–189. Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge (1985)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

19. Frazier, L.: Sentence Processing: A Tutorial Review (1987)

    Google Scholar 

20. Frazier, L.: syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theor.5(4), 519–559 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., Ehrlich, K.: Parallel structure: a source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Mem. Cogn.12(5), 421–430 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

22. Guzman, E., Azócar, D., Li, Y.: Sentiment analysis of commit comments in GitHub: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, NY, pp. 352–355. ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

23. Hart, M.S., Austen, J., Blake, W., Burgess, T.W., Bryant, S.C., Carroll, L., Chesterton, G.K., Edgeworth, M., Melville, H., Milton, J., Shakespeare, W., Whitman, W., Bible, K.J.: Project Gutenberg Selections. Freely available as a Corpus in the Natural Language ToolKit.http://www.nltk.org/nltk_data/#25

24. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S.G.: Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

25. Lipner, S.: The trustworthy computing security development lifecycle. In: 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 2–13, December 2004

    Google Scholar 

26. Manning, C.D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S.J., McClosky, D.: The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) System Demonstrations, pp. 55–60 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

27. Mäntylä, M.V., Lassenius, C.: What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? IEEE Trans. Software Eng.35(3), 430–448 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

28. Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol.38(1), 43–52 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. McGraw, G.: Software security. IEEE Secur. Priv.2(2), 80–83 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. Meneely, A., Srinivasan, H., Musa, A., Tejeda, A.R., Mokary, M., Spates, B.: When a patch goes bad: exploring the properties of vulnerability-contributing commits. In: 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 65–74, October 2013

    Google Scholar 

31. Menzies, T., Menzies, A., Distefano, J., Greenwald, J.: Problems with precision: a response to “comments on ‘data mining static code attributes to learn defect predictors”’. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.33(9), 637–640 (2007). doi:10.1109/TSE.2007.70721. ISSN: 0098-5589

    Article  Google Scholar 

32. Meyers, B.S.: Speech processing & linguistic analysis tool (SPLAT).https://github.com/meyersbs/SPLAT

33. Miller, G.: Human memory and the storage of information. IRE Trans. Inf. Theor.2(3), 129–137 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Miller, J.F., Chapman, R.S.: The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.24(2), 154–161 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Pletea, D., Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A.: Security and emotion: sentiment analysis of security discussions on GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, NY, pp. 348–351. ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

36. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2015).https://www.R-project.org/

37. Roark, B., Mitchell, M., Hosom, J., Hollingshead, K., Kaye, J.: Spoken language derived measures for detecting mild cognitive impairment. Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Proc.19(7), 2081–2090 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

38. Salton, G., Buckley, C.: Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inf. Process. Manage.24(5), 513–523 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

39. Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.: Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, October 2013

    Google Scholar 

40. Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cogn. Instr.8(4), 351–362 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

41. Yang, Y., Pedersen, J.O.: A comparative study on feature selection in text categorization. In: ICML, vol. 97, pp. 412–420 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

42. Yngve, V.H.: A Model and an Hypothesis for Language Structure, vol. 104, pp. 444–466. American Philosophical Society (1960)

    Google Scholar 

Download references