FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4387640055> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4387640055 endingPage "20" @default.
• W4387640055 startingPage "1" @default.
• W4387640055 abstract "ABSTRACTWhat does it mean to produce trustworthy code for computer scientists? Based primarily on ethnographic fieldwork in an undergraduate computer science program in Singapore, this article explores what it means for computer science students to write ‘good code.’ In doing so, it explores the values that underlie ideas of trust in the computer science discipline. Drawing on the work of Rebecca Bryant, this article shows how, as students learn to become ‘good at’ writing code that is technically functional, aesthetically un-individuated, and decontextually efficient, they also learn to become ‘good’ computer scientists. These standards of good code are distributed across human and nonhuman actors and provide a framework for ‘trustless trust’ in code. That is, while computer science often assumes an omnipresence of mistrust, this article argues that the production of ‘good’ code and ‘good’ computer scientists works to build a system of distrust for computer scientists. At the same time, becoming a good computer scientist is intimately intertwined with students’ selfhoods, undermining the foundation of trustless trust even as the ideal of objectively ‘good’ and trustworthy code cuts this contradiction from view.KEYWORDS: Computer scienceeducationtrustpersonhoodcode AcknowledgementsThank you to students, professors, and administrators who contributed to this research. Thank you also to James Maguire, Kristoffer Albris, the two anonymous reviewers, Benjamin Staple, and the Code Ethnography Collective (CECO) for their valuable comments and suggestions for improving this article, and to Robin Whitaker for her support and guidance throughout my MA and PhD.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Research for this article was approved by Memorial University of Newfoundland's Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research (#20140328-AR). Consent for participant observation in classes was obtained from the professor(s) and all students in the class were provided information in writing about my research and provided the opportunity to withdraw. Consent was otherwise negotiated and obtained on an individual basis. Some examples above are also discussed in my dissertation (Breslin Citation2018).2 Pseudonyms are used throughout both for the name of the university where I conducted research and for research participants.3 I have also drawn methodological insight from this research, alongside literature from feminist technology studies, in considering the multiple facets of education and subject-formation that need to be explored (see also Forsythe Citation2001; Fife Citation2005; Mackenzie Citation2006; Suchman Citation2007; Kho Citation2013).4 The Thompson Hack is explained in detail by Allen (Citation2021), but briefly it introduces a backdoor and self-replicating piece of code (combined, making the ‘hack’) into the compiler via the machine-level code. The combination makes it next to impossible to detect and ensures its persistence in all versions of the code and any systems that use it.5 An if statement is a basic programming structure that tells a computer to do ‘statements’ ‘if’ a certain ‘cond’ (condition) is met and ‘else’ (otherwise) do the other ‘statements.’6 I am using algorithm in the common sense used in computer science: ‘an algorithm is any well-defined computational procedure that takes some value, or set of values, as input and produces some value, or set of values, as output’ as defined in Introduction to Algorithms text book (Cormen et al. Citation2009, 5). The focus on algorithms versus ‘code’ in considering efficiency is that it is the algorithmic facets of code that often take the longest time, but often these algorithms are also considered in the abstract (e.g. written in pseudocode) as opposed to their specific implementation in a specific programming language or for a specific machine.7 CPU refers to Central Processing Unit. See, e.g. https://www.cpubenchmark.net.8 Computer science knowledge is also generally taught as ahistorical. Often the authors or inventors of particular theorems or technical objects are discussed. However, the social, material, and historical circumstances that shaped certain knowledges and practices are excluded from view (Breslin Citation2018; Mayhew and Patitsas Citation2021).9 See also (Nespor Citation1994) who discusses how students selves become part of distributed networks as part of education, in the discipline of physics in this case.10 Indeed, blockchain may be seen as a crystallized representation (or ‘figuration,’ Haraway Citation1997, 11) of these values.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Memorial University of Newfoundland." @default.
• W4387640055 created "2023-10-15" @default.
• W4387640055 creator A5056796996 @default.
• W4387640055 date "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4387640055 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W4387640055 title "Computing trust: on writing ‘good’ code in computer science education" @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1515490832 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1516468563 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1820405213 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1912715622 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1983188187 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W1996149054 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2074409794 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2086289651 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2094713958 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2105285600 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2105360069 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2112205484 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2153359210 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2161365335 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2485742646 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2778030544 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2888738098 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2900587005 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2933986653 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2961152996 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2985701331 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W2999550984 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3009676362 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3014452593 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3134414283 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3135269562 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3146083582 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3167192072 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W3201850595 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4229787763 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4229972742 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4234114533 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4239418324 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4241900263 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4249550770 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4250958956 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4252961560 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4255664328 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4298710704 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4302822129 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W4365388135 @default.
• W4387640055 cites W575988172 @default.
• W4387640055 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2023.2258887" @default.
• W4387640055 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4387640055 type Work @default.
• W4387640055 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4387640055 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4387640055 hasAuthorship W4387640055A5056796996 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C179454799 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C2776639384 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C2776728590 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C2776760102 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C2778321746 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C111472728 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C138885662 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C144024400 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C177264268 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C17744445 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C179454799 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C19165224 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C199360897 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C199539241 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C2776639384 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C2776728590 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C2776760102 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C2778321746 @default.
• W4387640055 hasConceptScore W4387640055C41008148 @default.
• W4387640055 hasFunder F4320323319 @default.
• W4387640055 hasFunder F4320334617 @default.
• W4387640055 hasLocation W43876400551 @default.
• W4387640055 hasOpenAccess W4387640055 @default.
• W4387640055 hasPrimaryLocation W43876400551 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W199727279 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2016002482 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2136955267 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2152370238 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2352717624 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2712460288 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W3160132286 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W3193570178 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W4379643837 @default.
• W4387640055 hasRelatedWork W2364471629 @default.
• W4387640055 isParatext "false" @default.

• next