Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceTarget AudienceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
33,307
result(s) for
"Program development software"
Sort by:
The Pandora multi-algorithm approach to automated pattern recognition of cosmic-ray muon and neutrino events in the MicroBooNE detector
2018
The development and operation of liquid-argon time-projection chambers for neutrino physics has created a need for new approaches to pattern recognition in order to fully exploit the imaging capabilities offered by this technology. Whereas the human brain can excel at identifying features in the recorded events, it is a significant challenge to develop an automated, algorithmic solution. The Pandora Software Development Kit provides functionality to aid the design and implementation of pattern-recognition algorithms. It promotes the use of a multi-algorithm approach to pattern recognition, in which individual algorithms each address a specific task in a particular topology. Many tens of algorithms then carefully build up a picture of the event and, together, provide a robust automated pattern-recognition solution. This paper describes details of the chain of over one hundred Pandora algorithms and tools used to reconstruct cosmic-ray muon and neutrino events in the MicroBooNE detector. Metrics that assess the current pattern-recognition performance are presented for simulated MicroBooNE events, using a selection of final-state event topologies.
Journal Article
In-Depth Review of Augmented Reality: Tracking Technologies, Development Tools, AR Displays, Collaborative AR, and Security Concerns
by
Nadeem, Adnan
,
Alkhodre, Ahmad B.
,
Namoun, Abdallah
in
Augmented Reality
,
augmented reality review
,
Blockchain
2022
Augmented reality (AR) has gained enormous popularity and acceptance in the past few years. AR is indeed a combination of different immersive experiences and solutions that serve as integrated components to assemble and accelerate the augmented reality phenomena as a workable and marvelous adaptive solution for many realms. These solutions of AR include tracking as a means for keeping track of the point of reference to make virtual objects visible in a real scene. Similarly, display technologies combine the virtual and real world with the user’s eye. Authoring tools provide platforms to develop AR applications by providing access to low-level libraries. The libraries can thereafter interact with the hardware of tracking sensors, cameras, and other technologies. In addition to this, advances in distributed computing and collaborative augmented reality also need stable solutions. The various participants can collaborate in an AR setting. The authors of this research have explored many solutions in this regard and present a comprehensive review to aid in doing research and improving different business transformations. However, during the course of this study, we identified that there is a lack of security solutions in various areas of collaborative AR (CAR), specifically in the area of distributed trust management in CAR. This research study also proposed a trusted CAR architecture with a use-case of tourism that can be used as a model for researchers with an interest in making secure AR-based remote communication sessions.
Journal Article
Monitoring health and wellbeing in adolescent track and field
by
Jennings, Anna
,
Mann, Robert H
,
Bunce, Natalie A
in
Athletes
,
Computer programs
,
Demographic aspects
2026
Talent Development Environments, such as England Athletics' Youth Talent Programme (YTP), aim to provide holistic support that promotes long-term athletic and personal development. There is a need for National Governing Bodies to understand athlete health and wellbeing (HWB) to increase athlete availability, wellbeing, and performance. Regarding the YTP, this study aimed to: (1) understand HWB concepts and current monitoring practices; (2) explore design preferences for athlete HWB monitoring; and (3) identify factors that influence the use and implementation of a HWB monitoring system. An online survey was completed by 53 YTP athletes (31 female) capturing demographics, HWB understanding, current monitoring behaviours, and design preferences. Six focus groups and one interview were subsequently conducted with YTP staff (n = 11) and athletes (n = 8). Staff discussions explored current data collection methods, factors that influence system adoption, and integration possibilities. Athlete discussions explored HWB attitudes, factors that influence system adoption, and design preferences. Survey findings indicated that athletes regard monitoring HWB as 'important' (36%) or 'very important' (26%). However, 62% of athletes do not keep a training diary and 45% do not monitor their HWB, confirming they lack tools and/or knowledge to monitor effectively. Sixty-six percent of athletes who do not monitor would like to improve HWB knowledge. Among those who monitor (55%), the most frequently recorded were training (n = 19) and sleep (n = 14) data. Reflexive thematic analysis generated four interrelated themes: (1) education as a pathway to athlete autonomy and wellbeing; (2) holistic HWB perspectives; (3) monitoring practices; and (4) factors that influence adoption. Findings highlight the importance of HWB education and whole person development. Despite limited formal monitoring knowledge, athletes engage in self-monitoring and are willing to improve HWB knowledge. Preference for mobile accessibility, adaptability, and reminders, together with socio-environmental factors, will inform the design of an athlete HWB monitoring system for the YTP.
Journal Article
Jenkins 2 : up and running : evolve your deployment pipeline for next-generation automation
Design, implement, and execute continuous delivery pipelines with a level of flexibility, control, and ease of maintenance that was not possible with Jenkins before. With this practical book, build administrators, developers, testers, and other professionals will learn how the features in Jenkins 2 let you define pipelines as code, leverage integration with other key technologies, and create automated, reliable pipelines to simplify and accelerate your DevOps environments.
Platform Pricing and Investment to Drive Third-Party Value Creation in Two-Sided Networks
by
Parker, Geoffrey G.
,
Tan, Burcu
,
Anderson, Edward G.
in
application programming interface
,
Applications programming
,
Computer platforms
2020
Many two-sided platforms, such as eBay, iOS, Android, and Twitter, invest in developer integration tools, such as modular interfaces, interactive development environments, application programming interfaces, and help desks, in order to reduce the cost and improve the functionality of third-party content developed for the platform. Although these integration tools are crucial to platform success, they are costly to create, and therefore, managers need to understand where and when to deploy them. In particular, when the necessary integration investment is high, the advice to subsidize one side of a two-sided market while charging the other may not hold. This means that integration investment should be carefully coordinated with market pricing decisions. In general, higher levels of investment by hardware/software platforms into integration become desirable when the platform (1) has access to a large pool of content providers and consumers, (2) is able to develop integration tools that are highly effective in reducing third-party development costs, and (3) operates in high-consumer value markets. However, there are nuances. For example, business to business platforms can make investments in integration to facilitate participation by both sides of the market. We find that such investments are complements, not—as one might expect—substitutes.
Many two-sided platforms (for example, eBay, Google, iOS, Android, Twitter, and Amazon) provide integration tools, such as modular interfaces, interactive development environments, application programming interfaces, and help desks, to reduce the costs and improve the functionality of third-party content developed for the platform. The need for such investment is increasing with the rise of major new markets as the result of technologies, such as the “Internet of Things.” Although crucial to platform success, platform integration tools are costly to create. We develop an analytic model to explore the key tradeoffs behind investment in integration tools and how that investment interacts with pricing decisions in a two-sided market. We model these decisions for hardware/software platforms as well as hybrid retail platforms and analyze them under various scenarios, including monopoly and competition. Our results suggest that considering integration investment can create market regimes in which the standard pricing results from the extant platform literature no longer hold. For example, the tendency to reduce prices to one side of a market in response to increasing the benefit of the network to the other side may be suboptimal in the presence of integration investment. Therefore, integration investments must be well coordinated with pricing decisions made for both sides of the market. In general, higher levels of investment by hardware/software platforms into integration become desirable when the platform (1) has access to a large pool of content providers and consumers, (2) is able to develop integration tools that are highly effective in reducing third-party development costs, and (3) operates in a market in which content providers earn a high-enough profit margin creating content that is highly valued by the consumer market. Hybrid retail platforms often show similar behavior. However, there are some nuances. For example, business to business platforms can make investments in integration to facilitate participation by both sides of the market. We find that these investments are complements, not—as one might expect—substitutes. We conclude by discussing this work’s implications for theory and practice.
Journal Article