DOCSLIB.ORG

Computer Science Curricula 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Computer Science Curricula 2013 Computer Science Curricula 2013 Strawman Draft (February 2012) The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula Association for Computing Machinery IEEE-Computer Society CS2013 Steering Committee ACM Delegation IEEE-CS Delegation Mehran Sahami, Chair (Stanford University) Steve Roach, Chair (Univ. of Texas, El Paso) Andrea Danyluk (Williams College) Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas (Univ. Catolica San Pablo) Sally Fincher (University of Kent) Ronald Dodge (US Military Academy) Kathleen Fisher (Tufts University) Robert France (Colorado State University) Dan Grossman (University of Washington) Amruth Kumar (Ramapo Coll. of New Jersey) Beth Hawthorne (Union County College) Brian Robinson (ABB Corporation) Randy Katz (UC Berkeley) Remzi Seker (Univ. of Arkansas, Little Rock) Rich LeBlanc (Seattle University) Alfred Thompson (Microsoft) Dave Reed (Creighton University) - 2 - Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 Charter......................................................................................................................................... 6 High-level Themes ...................................................................................................................... 6 Knowledge Areas ........................................................................................................................ 7 Previous Input ............................................................................................................................. 8 Coming Attractions in CS2013 ................................................................................................... 9 Timeline .................................................................................................................................... 10 Exemplars of Curricula and Courses ........................................................................................ 10 Professional Practice ................................................................................................................. 11 Institutional Challenges ............................................................................................................ 11 Opportunities for Involvement .................................................................................................. 12 References ................................................................................................................................. 12 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: Principles ..................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 3: Characteristics of Graduates ....................................................................................... 19 Chapter 4: Constructing a Complete Curriculum ......................................................................... 22 Knowledge Areas are Not Necessarily Courses (and Important Examples Thereof) ............... 23 Tier-1 Core, Tier-2 Core, Elective: What These Terms Mean, What is Required ................... 24 Further Considerations .............................................................................................................. 26 - 3 - Chapter 5: Introduction to the Body of Knowledge...................................................................... 28 Process for Updating the Body of Knowledge ......................................................................... 28 Overview of New Knowledge Areas ........................................................................................ 29 How to Read the Body of Knowledge ...................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: The Body of Knowledge ......................................................................................... 35 Algorithms and Complexity (AL) ............................................................................................. 35 Architecture and Organization (AR) ......................................................................................... 42 Computational Science (CN) .................................................................................................... 48 Discrete Structures (DS) ........................................................................................................... 55 Graphics and Visualization (GV).............................................................................................. 61 Human-Computer Interaction (HC) .......................................................................................... 68 Information Assurance and Security (IAS)............................................................................... 76 Information Management (IM) ................................................................................................. 87 Intelligent Systems (IS)............................................................................................................. 95 Networking and Communication (NC) ................................................................................... 105 Operating Systems (OS) ......................................................................................................... 109 Platform-Based Development (PBD) ..................................................................................... 116 Parallel and Distributed Computing (PD) ............................................................................... 119 Programming Languages (PL) ................................................................................................ 128 Software Development Fundamentals (SDF) ......................................................................... 138 Software Engineering (SE) ..................................................................................................... 143 Systems Fundamentals (SF) .................................................................................................... 157 Social and Professional Practice (SP) ..................................................................................... 163 - 4 - 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 2 Continuing a process that began over 40 years ago with the publication of Curriculum 68 [1], the 3 major professional societies in computing—ACM and IEEE-Computer Society—have sponsored 4 efforts to establish international curricular guidelines for undergraduate programs in computing 5 on roughly a 10-year cycle. As the field of computing has grown and diversified, so too have the 6 curricular recommendations, and there are now curricular volumes for Computer Engineering, 7 Information Systems, Information Technology, and Software Engineering in addition to 8 Computer Science [3]. These volumes are updated regularly with the aim of keeping computing 9 curricula modern and relevant. The last complete Computer Science curricular volume was 10 released in 2001 (CC2001) [2], and an interim review effort concluded in 2008 (CS2008) [4]. 11 This volume, Computer Science Curricula 2013 (CS2013), represents a comprehensive revision. 12 CS2013 redefines the knowledge units in CS, rethinking the essentials necessary for a Computer 13 Science curriculum. It also seeks to identify exemplars of actual courses and programs to 14 provide concrete guidance on curricular structure and development in a variety of institutional 15 contexts. 16 The development of curricular guidelines for Computer Science is particularly challenging given 17 the rapid evolution and expansion of the field: material dates fast. Moreover, the growing 18 diversity of topics in Computer Science and the increasing integration of computing with other 19 disciplines create additional challenges. Balancing topical growth with the need to keep 20 recommendations realistic and implementable in the context of undergraduate education is 21 particularly difficult. As a result, it is important to engage the broader computer science 22 education community in a dialog to better understand new opportunities, local needs, and to 23 identify successful models of computing curriculum – whether established or novel. One aim of 24 this Strawman report is to provide the basis for such engagement, by providing an early draft of 25 the CS2013 volume that can be scrutinized by members of the computing community with the 26 goal of augmenting and refining the final report. 27 28 Charter 29 The ACM and IEEE-Computer Society chartered the CS2013 effort with the following directive: 30 To review the Joint ACM and IEEE-CS Computer Science volume of 31 Computing Curricula 2001 and the accompanying interim review CS 2008, 32 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2013 that will match 33 the latest developments in the discipline and have lasting impact. 34 The CS2013 task force will seek input from a diverse audience with the goal of 35 broadening participation in computer science. The report will seek to be 36 international in scope and offer curricular and pedagogical guidance 37 applicable to a wide range of institutions. The process of producing the final 38 report will include multiple opportunities for public consultation and scrutiny. 39 Consequently, the CS2013 task force welcomes review of, and comment on, this draft report. 40 High-level Themes 41 In developing CS2013, several high-level themes provided an overarching
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIGCSE FY15 Annual Report July 2014 - June 2015 Submitted By: Susan H
    SIGCSE FY15 Annual Report July 2014 - June 2015 Submitted by: Susan H. Rodger, Chair 1. Awards that were given out: The SIGCSE Award for Outstanding Contribution to Computer Science Education was presented to Mark Allen Weiss from Florida International University for authoring textbooks on introductory programming and data structures that have had a profound impact on generations of students, and for dedicated service contributions regarding the Advanced Placement Computer Science program. The SIGCSE Award for Lifetime Service to the Computer Science Education Commu- nity was presented to Frank Young, Emeritus Professor of Rose-Hulman Institute, for dedicated service to the computing education community. He especially had many con- tributions to SIGCSE including co-chairing the Symposium, leading efforts for many years with the registration system for the Symposium and most recently spent many years as the SIGCSE Information Co-Director. 2. Significant papers on new areas that were published in proceedings ICER 2014 had two best paper awards. The Chair's award is selected by the organizing committee and was presented to: Leo Porter, Daniel Zingaro and Raymond Lister, Predicting student success using the fine grain clicker, ICER '14, Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on international computing education research, pages 51-58, 2014. The ICER 2014 John Henry Award is selected by the conference delegates and was presented to: Josh Tenenberg and Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Computer programs, dialogicality and intentionality, ICER '14, Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on international computing education research, pages 99-106, 2014. The best paper selected at ITiCSE 2015 was: Insa, David and Silva, Josep, Semi-Automatic Assessment of Unrestrained Java Code: A Library, a DSL, and a Workbench to Assess Exams and Exercises, ITiCSE '15 Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 39-44, 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Bradley E. Richards December 2010
    Curriculum Vitae Bradley E. Richards December 2010 Office: Home: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science 13446 108th Ave SW University of Puget Sound Vashon, WA 98070 1500 N. Warner St. (206) 567-5308 Tacoma, WA 98416 (206) 234-3560 (cell) (253) 879{3579 (253) 879{3352 (fax) [email protected] Degrees Ph.D. in Computer Science, August 1996 and M.S. in Computer Science, May 1992 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI Advisor: James R. Larus Thesis: \Memory Systems for Parallel Programming" M.Sc. in Computer Science, April 1990 University of Victoria, Victoria B.C., Canada Advisor: Maarten van Emden Thesis: \Contributions to Functional Programming in Logic" B.A. Degrees, magna cum laude, in Computer Science and Physics, May 1988 Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN Advisor: Karl Knight Positions Held University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington Professor (7/2010{present) Associate Professor (7/2005{6/2010) Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York Associate Professor, tenured (6/2004{8/2005) Assistant Professor (9/1997{6/2004) Visiting Assistant Professor (9/1996{8/1997) University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Graduate Research Assistant (6/1993{8/1996) Graduate Teaching Assistant (9/1990{5/1993) University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada Graduate Research Assistant (9/1988{4/1990) Graduate Teaching Assistant (9/1988{4/1990) Grants and Awards Co-PI, NSF Computing Research Infrastructure (CRI) grant #0734761, titled \Workshop for investigating the issues involved in implementing a data repository for empirical CS education data." Total grant amount $19,070, awarded 7/2007. With PI Kathryn Sanders, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rhode Island College.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Academic Repository Full Text Document (Pdf)
    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Tenenberg, Josh and Fincher, Sally (2007) Opening the Door of the Computer Science Classroom: The Disciplinary Commons. In: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, United States pp. 514-518. ISBN 1-59593-361-1. DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227484 Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/14604/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Opening the Door of the Computer Science Classroom: The Disciplinary Commons Josh Tenenberg Sally Fincher University of Washington, Tacoma Computing Laboratory Instute of Technology University of Kent Tacoma, WA 98402 Canterbury, Kent, UK +1-253-692-5860 +44 1227 824061 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT starting their lives within the profession, practitioners have essentially no experience of what will be their daily tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Institutional Teaching Communities in Computer Education
    Multi-Institutional Teaching Communities in Computer Education Sally Fincher Raymond Lister Arnold Pears Computing Laboratory, Faculty of Information Technology, Dept of Information Technology, University of Kent, University of Technology, Sydney, Uppsala University, United Kingdom Australia Sweden [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Judy Sheard Josh Tenenberg Alison Young School of Computer Science and Computing and Software Systems Computing and Information Software Engineering Institute of Technology Technology Monash University University of Washington, Unitec, Auckland Australia United States of America New Zealand [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1 Raymond Lister: the Chair’s Introduction 2 Sally Fincher: The Computer Science Most Information Technology academics lead double Discipline Network (CSDN) lives. In our research lives, we are involved in a The UK Computer Science Discipline Network (CSDN) community that exists primarily beyond our own was initially funded for one year (1994-95) in the first- university. We read the literature, we attend conferences, phase of the governmental Discipline Networks' we work within well defined theoretical or empirical Initiative. It subsequently succeeded in gaining funding frameworks, we publish, and the cycle repeats, with for another year (1995-96) in the second round of first- community members building upon each other's work. phase bidding. One of the major aims of CSDN was to In contrast, for most of us, our teaching lives are engage, develop, support and sustain a community of relatively private, and primarily confined to our own interested practitioners. university. We tend not to read teaching literature, we are I’ll examine the needs which CSDN set out to fulfil, the guided primarily by our direct experiences, intuitions, and mechanisms by which we tried to achieve our aims and introspections.
    [Show full text]
  • Computing Research News a Publication of the Computing Research Association
    Computing Research news A Publication of the Computing Research Association January 2010 Vol. 22/No. 1 Congress Approves Increases for Science, Computing Research Final Budgets Still Fall Short of President’s Request By Peter Harsha Computing research programs at over concerns raised by Senate the President’s requested budget to FY 2009, plus an additional $77 the National Science Foundation and appropriators about management for the agency. Included in that million in congressionally directed the Department of Energy’s Office issues at the agency. increase is an even larger percentage spending. The appropriation includes of Science are among those slated for While these science agencies will increase for NSF’s Computer and funding for the Advanced Scientific increases in fiscal year 2010, thanks see budget increases in FY 2010, in Information Science and Engineering Computing Research (ASCR) to appropriations legislation that each case the approved increase falls (CISE) directorate. CISE will receive program, which will receive $394 would keep those agencies on a path short of the President’s requested $620 million in FY 2010—less than million in FY 2010, an increase of to double their budgets over the next budget for FY 2010 for that agency. the $633 million requested by the nearly 7 percent over FY 2009. six years. Congress approved the last Typically, congressional appropriators President. but 8.1 percent greater of twelve annual appropriations bills use the shortfall between what the than the FY 2009 budget. National Institute of necessary to fund the operations President requested and what they NSF’s Office of Cyberinfrastructure Standards and Technology of government on December 18, appropriate to pay for congressionally (OCI) also fared well in the final NIST will receive $603 million for providing a healthy increase to the directed projects (also known as appropriation, receiving $215 million its core research efforts in FY 2010, an NSF budget, a more modest increase “earmarks”) to provide increases in FY 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Teach STEM Disciplines in Higher Education: a Critical Review of the Literature
    Winberg, C. et al. (2018). Learning to teach STEM disciplines in higher education: a critical review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517735 Learning to teach STEM disciplines in higher education: a critical review of the literature Christine Winberg, Hanelie Adendorff, Vivienne Bozalek, Honjiswa Conana, Nicola Pallitt, Karin Wolff, Thomas Olsson and Torgny Roxå Abstract Enrolments in STEM disciplines at universities are increasing globally, attributed to the greater life opportunities open to students as a result of a STEM education. But while institutional access to STEM programmes is widening, the retention and success of STEM undergraduate students remains a challenge. Pedagogies that support student success are well known; what we know less about is how university teachers acquire pedagogical competence. This is the focus of this critical review of the literature that offers a theorised critique of educational development in STEM contexts. We studied the research literature with a view to uncovering the principles that inform professional development in STEM disciplines and fields. The key finding of this critical review is how little focus there is on the STEM disciplines. The majority of studies reviewed did not address the key issue of what makes the STEM disciplines difficult to learn and challenging to teach. Introduction: the increasing importance of the STEM disciplines and fields The term ‘STEM’ (an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics) was coined by the National Science Foundation in the 1990s as national governments became increasingly aware of the importance of this cluster of disciplines for economic growth (Bybee 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Duncan Hull, University of Manchester 2 Contents
    Dr. Duncan Hull, University of Manchester 2 Contents Hello! 7 Full stack teaching ........................... 8 What’s the story? ............................ 8 Toolbox ................................. 9 Get a life! ................................ 9 1 Students 11 1.1 All years: Debug your future ................... 11 1.2 First year students ........................ 12 1.3 Second year students ....................... 12 1.4 Penultimate year students .................... 13 1.5 Final year students ........................ 13 1.6 Masters students ......................... 13 1.7 PhD students ........................... 13 1.8 Extracurricular .......................... 14 2 Employers 15 2.1 Recruiting students ........................ 15 2.2 Careers fairs ............................ 17 2.3 Drop-in sessions .......................... 17 3 4 CONTENTS 2.4 Industry Club ........................... 18 2.5 Industrial mentoring ....................... 18 2.6 Co-supervised projects ...................... 18 2.7 The Wednesday Waggle ..................... 19 2.8 Join the community ....................... 19 2.9 Buzzing! .............................. 20 2.10 Employability ........................... 20 3 Research 23 3.1 SIGCSE .............................. 23 3.2 Industrial mentoring ....................... 24 3.3 Coderdojo & Code Club ..................... 24 3.4 Wikipedia ............................. 25 3.5 Tuning complete ......................... 26 3.6 Publications ............................ 27 4 Coding their future 31 4.1 Guidance for
    [Show full text]
  • CCSCNE-2012 the Seventeenth Annual Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges Northeastern Conference
    Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges in cooperation with The Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education presents CCSCNE-2012 The Seventeenth Annual Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges Northeastern Conference Held At: Quinnipiac University Hamden, CT Conference Supporters Platinum Partner Gold Partner National Partners 2 Program of Events Friday, April 27 Registration (10:00AM – 5:00PM) Registration Burt Kahn Court Lobby Programming Contest (7:45 AM - 12:45 PM) 7:45 Breakfast and registration of teams Rec Center Court 3 8:45 Initial meeting & presentation of problems Rec Center Court 3 9:00 Contest Rec Center Court 4 12:00 Luncheon for the teams Rec Center Court 3 Pre-Conference Workshops (9:00 AM - 12:00 PM) Workshop 1: Rec Center Software testing (in Java) from the beginning Studio A Viera Proulx, Northeastern University, MA Workshop 2: Rec Center Reducing the learning curve in an introductory Athletic Conf. Room programming course using Visual Logic© Dee Gudmundsen, The College of Saint Rose, NY Lisa Olvieri, Chestnut Hill College, PA Namita Sarawagi, Rhode Island College, RI Workshop 3: Rec Center Learning FOSS collaboration tools & techniques through guided inquiry acitivities Studio B Clif Kussmaul, Muhlenberg College Heidi Ellis, Western New England University Gregory Hislop, Drexel University, PA Workshop 4: Mancheski Seminar Room Teaching CS0 with mobile apps using App Inventor for Android Hal Abelson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA Ralph Morelli, Trinity College, CT Stella Kakavouli, Wellesley College, MA Eni Mustafaraj, Wellesley College, MA Franklyn Turbak, Wellesley College, MA Vendor Displays (10:00 AM - 5:00 PM) Vendor Display Burt Kahn Court 3 Welcome (1:00 PM - 1:15 PM) Welcome Burt Kahn Court Mark A.
    [Show full text]
  • ACM Curriculum Reports: a Pedagogic Perspective
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository ACM Curriculum Reports: A Pedagogic Perspective Sebastian Dziallas Sally Fincher School of Computing School of Computing University of Kent University of Kent Canterbury, CT2 7NF, England Canterbury, CT2 7NF, England +44 1227 827684 +44 1227 824061 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The reports are documents that reflect their time. And yet, as In this paper, we illuminate themes that emerged in interviews written records, they cannot fully capture the context of their time. with participants in the major curriculum recommendation efforts: [14] While some reports explicitly respond to pressing we characterize the way the computing community interacts with contemporary concerns (such as “the computing crisis” in the and influences these reports and introduce the term “pedagogic 2008 interim report), they do not reveal the rich discourse that is projection” to describe implicit assumptions of how these reports exchanged between committee members and that is engaged more will be used in practice. We then illuminate how this perceived widely in the academic community, that the reports ultimately use has changed over time and may affect future reports. represent. This dialogue includes the reports’ joint and several authors, but also other, less central participants, such as those who contribute perspectives to individual knowledge areas; those who Categories and Subject Descriptors provide sample courses and curricula; and those who provide K.3.2 [Computers and Education]: Computer and Information oversight on the ACM Education Board. Science Education – curriculum, computer science education. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Warren's Question
    Warren’s Question Sally Fincher Josh Tenenberg Computing Laboratory Institute of Technology University of Kent, UK University of Washington, Tacoma, USA +44 1227 824061 +1 253.692.5860 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT over the course of an academic year. During these meetings, aspects of teaching practice were shared, peer-reviewed and In this paper, we present an extended examination of a ultimately documented in course portfolios. specific, single, instance of transfer of teaching practice. The investigation uses a combination of interpretative analytic We highlight two particular implications of our research focus. techniques from critical literary studies, and grounded theory. One is that changes in computing education must require From this analysis we make conjectures about some of the change in the specific practices of CS educators. Hence if CS ways in which educators change their teaching practice and Ed researchers are to impact student learning we, as suggest that these natural practices hold a challenge both for researchers, must investigate the practices of CS educators. computing education research and educational development. Secondly, we present a set of conjectures about some of the ways in which change of practice occurs, grounded in interview and survey data collected from participants in the Categories and Subject Descriptors Disciplinary Commons project. Our main conjecture, grounded K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education in observation and post-project interviews, is that teaching practitioners adopt new practices by adapting practices directly General Terms from other practitioners via discussion and observation. Theory Teaching practitioners do not primarily use educational workshops or papers (whether theoretically or empirically based) as an inspiration for change.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Theory to Inform Capacity-Building Bootstrapping
    UsingBootstrapping. Theory to Communities° Inform Capacity-Building of Practice in Computer Science Education Research SALLY PINCHER teaching tool report, and the nifty assignment exposition--that has ComputingLaboratory characterized the bulk of CSEd research presented in the major University ofKent CSEd teaching-practitioner conferences to date [1]. Though these accounts play important roles in teacher development and communi- JOSH TENENBERG ty self-definition, they do not constitute a theoretical base for CSEd. Institute of Technology The primary challenges in developing this base of CSEd research University of Washington, Tacoma are sociological. There is as yet no paradigm of CSEd research. As Kuhn states [2]: ABSTRACT Effective research scarcely begins before a scientific community thinks it has acquired firm answers to the following: What are In this paper, we describe our efforts in the deliberate creation of a the fmudamental entities of which the universe is composed? community ofpracticeof researchers in computer science education How do these interact with each other and with the senses? (CSEd). We understand community of practice in the sense in What questions may legitimately be asked about such entities which Wenger describes it, whereby the community is character- and what techniques employed in seeking solutions? ized by mutual engagement in a joint enterprisethat gives rise to a sharedrepertoire of knowledge, artefacts, and practices. "Normal" science takes place among scientific communities that We first identify CSEd as a research field in which no shared have a shared set of answers to the above questions. Kuhn calls this paradigm exists, and then we describe the Bootstrappingproject, socially shared set of beliefs aparadigm.Paradigms comprise a dis- its metaphor, structure, rationale, and delivery, as designed to cre- ciplinary community's ontology (what things we are concerned ate a community of practice of CSEd researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Communications of the ACM : 2010–2019
    A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Communications of the ACM : 2010{2019 Nelson H. F. Beebe University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA Tel: +1 801 581 5254 FAX: +1 801 581 4148 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Internet) WWW URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ 11 December 2019 Version 1.130 Title word cross-reference [2146]. 2017 [2336, 2313]. 21st [2065, 2833, 2656, 1052, 2499, 141]. 3 [2677]. 30-year [2751]. 33 [343]. 3G [352]. #1 [667]. 50th [2359]. + [859, 2507]. $1 [1598, 1575]. 10 2 [166]. 3 [1290, 962, 2165, 1291, 2659, 2164,± 1339, 600km [2693]. 2381, 2572, 250, 2747, 2158]. = [859, 378]. b [614]. λ>4 [2041]. n [857]. n = me [1398]. = [377]. = [2507]. 6 Aadhaar [2995]. abbey [2716]. ABCs -bit [614]. -gram [857]. -Spectre [2728]. [2607]. abductive [67]. abilities [2670]. -sweep [2165]. Ability [2582]. Ability-based [2582]. Abolish [1680]. abound [738]. above 12 [337, 1421, 2056, 1824]. 14th [564]. [2633, 186]. abstract [642, 643]. Abstracting [2459, 642, 643]. Abstraction 2.0 [373, 473, 1306, 1650, 33, 501]. 2008 [661, 1020, 2153, 403]. Abstractions [382]. 2009 [12]. 2011 [626, 711]. 2016 1 2 [1060, 1541]. abstracts [1638]. abuse [104, 694, 207, 237]. adults [2332]. advance [552, 1123]. academia [2194, 992]. [1277, 2217]. advanced [1681]. Advances Academic [1098, 2435, 2437, 2071, 2644, [780]. Advancing [1840, 553]. advantage 2284, 2128, 2232, 1159, 2118, 2023, 170]. [2341]. Adventures [1156]. adversarial academic-unit [2023]. academics [1228]. [2604]. Advertising academies [3016].
    [Show full text]