In this task, you are given a paper review. Based on the review, your job is to identify language and generate "en" if the review is in English or generate "es" if the review is in Spanish. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

El articulo realiza una descripcion general del modelo CMMI y de las metodologias agiles, tomando como casos particulares Scrum y XP. Se realiza una discusion sobre la combinacion de estos enfoques para la mejora de procesos, realizando un mapeo de las areas de proceso REQM y PPQA con sus equivalentes en las metodologias agiles. El articulo realiza descripciones generales correctas de las metodologias, pero no contiene elementos de investigacion novedosos que aporten al conocimiento en esta area. Para la comunidad tecnica/cientifica de ingenieria de software resulta evidente que los enfoques tienen distintos puntos de partida, pero son combinables. Esto es especialmente cierto para expertos en mejora de proceso de software. La revision que se realiza sobre la investigacion de la combinacion de agilidad y CMMI no es sistematica. Por estado del arte no se entiende una descripcion simple de cada enfoque, sino recoger la investigacion mas actualizada sobre este tema. Si bien puede ser interesante realizar un mapeo entre areas de proceso y practicas agiles, no se explica que pasos se van a seguir para realizar esto. Tampoco se realiza una validacion de este mapeo o se explica como puede ser aplicado, por ejemplo por un consultor en mejora de procesos. No se aporta ninguna evidencia empirica de la aplicabilidad o utilidad del mapeo.
es

This work presents a novel 3D CNN architecture for climate event detection that combines an unsupervised auto-encoder reconstruction loss with YOLO like bounding box prediction. The approach is trained and evaluated on a large-scale, simulated climate dataset labeled by a costly heuristic approach called TECA. For the most part, the paper is nicely written (minor comments below) and addresses an important and well motivated problem. The authors provide sufficient model details to allow reproduction (although public code would be preferred). I find the experiments a bit unconvincing (see below) but appreciate the attention to model capacity (via number of parameter) when comparing the 2D and 3D model variants. I am concerned that the evaluation may be insufficient to assess the effectiveness of this method. An IoU threshold of 0.1 allows for many rather poor detections to count as true positives. If the goal of this work is to count the number of such instances this is defensible, but for localization this seems overly loose.Furthermore, the 3D CNN architecture (which is one of the the core novelties of this work compared to past efforts) does not seem capable of producing variable sized boxes (as noted in the last paragraph of page 7), which I imagine results in poorer performance at higher IoU thresholds (as many of the weather events appear small). The experiments also feel inconclusive about the effect of temporal modeling and semi-supervision. The temporal component does not seem to matter in the supervised settings (2D 51.45 mAP - 3D 51.00 mAP) but improves somewhat in the semi-supervised case (2D 51.11 mAP - 3D 52.92 mAP). Whereas the additional unlabeled data seems to hurt in the 2D case but improve results for the 3D model. Could the authors provide confidence intervals for these numbers? I would like to see further discussion of these trends especially with respect to the effect of the loss weights (alpha, beta, and gamma). I also note that it is not clear if both the 2D and 3D models were trained for equivalent time periods (seems like no from last paragraph of page 7). Could a plot of training and validation accuracy for each model be presented for comparison? Finally, is there any baseline approach the authors could report or compare too? Without one, it is difficult to evaluate the performance of the approach with respect to the difficulty of the problem. Preliminary Rating: I think this is an interesting paper that is well motivated but feel the experiments as presented do not seem adequate to support any conclusive trends. I would like to see the mAP trends across a wider range of IoU values and further discussion of training procedure, loss weight settings, and reasons for lack of bounding box variability in the 3D model (as stated above). Clarification: In the paper you say "While climate models are run on a 3D grid, with the vertical dimension corresponding to 30 levels; we only consider surface quantities (i.e. 2D data) in this study." Could you elaborate on what the surface quantities correspond to? Is it the highest cloud level? Minor notes: Please provide years for Prabhat et al. references rather than a and b. Footnote in 4.2 could be inline text with similar space. 4.3 second paragraph the word table is not capitalized like elsewhere. 4.3 4th paragraph the word section is not capitalized like elsewhere. Edit: I appreciate the authors responding to my questions but still feel the relatively poor localization performance at stricter IoU thresholds fails to justify the complexity of the approach. I encourage the authors to continue pursuing this line of research.
en

Se explica en forma ordenada y didactica una experiencia de uso de TIC para la colaboracion academica. La originalidad del trabajo no es su dimension fuerte, ver trabajos de larga data como Gorton et al. (1997) y actuales como Lanunile et al. (2010). Sin embargo, la relevancia del tema como patron de referencia en actividades relacionadas a tesis cientificas, asociada a su buena presentacion, hacen de el un aporte. Se sugiere, en miras a una publicacion en revista, que se compare la eficiencia y efectividad de las actividades sin el apoyo de estas herramientas versus la actual realidad (con herramientas). Ejemplos de preguntas posibles a responder de este analisis exploratorio: Cuales son las principales actividades donde el uso de herramientas colaborativas es clave? Que cambios en el diseno de estas herramientas se deberian desarrollar en el futuro? Existen perfiles de estudiantes/academicos mas propicios para la adopcion de estas plataformas? Referencias: Gorton, I., Hawryszkiewycz, I., and Ragoonaden, K. 1997. Collaborative tools and processes to support software engineering shift work. BT Technology Journal 15, 3 (Jul. 1997), 189-198. Filippo Lanubile, Christof Ebert, Rafael Prikladnicki, Aurora Vizcaino, "Collaboration Tools for Global Software Engineering," IEEE Software, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 52-55, Mar./Apr. 2010.
es