pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.13774 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-14 · 💻 cs.SE

A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Coaching to Mitigate the Impostor Phenomenon in Early-Career Software Engineers

Paloma Guenes , Joan Leite , Rafael Tomaz , Allysson Allex Araujo , Jean Natividade , Maria Teresa Baldassarre , Marcos Kalinowski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords impostor phenomenoncoaching interventionsoftware engineeringearly-career engineersquasi-experimentClance Impostor Phenomenon Scalewait-list controlteam dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coaching produced modest reductions in impostor feelings among early-career software engineers, yet the untreated control group improved similarly, pointing to team and project contexts as stronger drivers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The study tests whether a three-session group coaching program can reduce impostor phenomenon feelings more effectively than ordinary passage of time and team experience in software engineering settings. Researchers ran a small quasi-experiment with twenty participants split across two project teams, using a wait-list design so one group received coaching while the other was observed first. Impostor scores dropped modestly after coaching, but the control group showed comparable drops during its observation-only phase. This pattern suggests that daily collaboration, project demands, and simple awareness over time may account for much of the change rather than the structured sessions alone. The work matters because impostor feelings are reported widely in software teams, and knowing whether formal coaching adds distinct value helps organizations allocate limited support resources effectively.

Core claim

The three-session coaching intervention produced modest reductions in Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale scores for the treatment group, but the wait-list control group exhibited comparable improvements during the preceding observation phase, indicating that broader contextual and temporal factors within team collaboration and project work may exert stronger influence on impostor feelings than the formal coaching program.

What carries the argument

The wait-list control quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-CIPS measurements plus non-participant observation, which compares coached changes against natural changes during the waiting period.

If this is right

  • Coaching can support reflection and awareness around impostor feelings but does not clearly outperform ordinary team and project exposure.
  • Team collaboration and ongoing project work appear to contribute to reductions in impostor scores independently of the intervention.
  • Future support efforts in software engineering should consider embedding reflection opportunities within existing team routines rather than relying solely on standalone sessions.
  • The modest overall changes highlight that contextual factors deserve equal attention when designing interventions for early-career engineers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Larger trials with participants drawn from separate teams could test whether coaching adds measurable value once team dynamics are removed as a confound.
  • Organizations could experiment with lightweight, continuous team practices that encourage open discussion of competence doubts instead of scheduling discrete coaching blocks.
  • Similar patterns may appear in other high-expertise technical domains where project pressure and peer comparison are common.
  • Tracking participants several months after the study would reveal whether any observed reductions persist or fade once project contexts change.

Load-bearing premise

The small sample of twenty participants sharing team contexts allows the three coaching sessions to be isolated as the primary cause of score changes rather than time, project work, or group dynamics.

What would settle it

A larger study that keeps participants isolated from shared team contexts during the waiting period and finds no improvement in the control group's CIPS scores would indicate that coaching itself produces a distinct effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13774 by Allysson Allex Araujo, Jean Natividade, Joan Leite, Marcos Kalinowski, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Paloma Guenes, Rafael Tomaz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Timeline of measurements and intervention phases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of Average CIPS Scores throughout the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of Average CIPS Scores by subgroups (G1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of score distributions across the study timeline (T0–T3) for all five psychological scales. Dashed horizontal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation matrices of psychological scales at base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Context: The Impostor Phenomenon (IP), the persistent belief of being a fraud despite evident competence, is common in Software Engineering (SE), where high expectations for expertise and innovation prevail. Although coaching and similar interventions are proposed to mitigate IP, empirical evidence in SE remains underexplored. Objective: This study examines the impact of a structured group coaching intervention on reducing IP feelings among early-career software engineers. Method: We conducted a quasi-experiment with 20 participants distributed across two project teams using a wait-list control design, complemented by non-participant observation. The treatment group received a three-session coaching intervention, while the control group received it after an observation phase. IP was assessed using the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), alongside evaluated measures of well-being (WHO-5), life satisfaction (SWLS), and affect (PANAS). Results: The coaching resulted in modest reductions in CIPS scores, whereas the control group also improved during the observation phase, suggesting that contextual and temporal factors may have exerted a stronger influence than the formal intervention. Conclusion: These results suggest that coaching may support reflection and awareness related to IP, yet other contextual aspects of team collaboration and project work might also contribute to these changes. This study offers a novel empirical step toward understanding how structured IP interventions operate within SE environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a quasi-experimental study with a wait-list control design involving 20 early-career software engineers in two teams. It evaluates the effect of a three-session group coaching intervention on reducing impostor phenomenon (IP) as measured by the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), along with secondary measures of well-being (WHO-5), life satisfaction (SWLS), and affect (PANAS). The results indicate modest CIPS reductions in the treatment group, but similar improvements in the control group during the observation phase, leading to the conclusion that contextual and temporal factors may have a stronger influence than the intervention itself.

Significance. If the findings hold after addressing design limitations, this work provides a valuable empirical contribution to software engineering by examining structured interventions for the impostor phenomenon in authentic team settings. It underscores the potential role of coaching in fostering reflection while highlighting how team collaboration and project work may independently influence IP, filling a noted gap in SE-specific evidence and offering a basis for larger-scale studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method] Method section: The wait-list control design with a total sample of 20 participants split across two non-randomized project teams lacks the power and controls needed to isolate the unique causal effect of the three-session coaching from team dynamics, project timelines, and natural maturation. The control group's improvement during the observation phase directly illustrates this confounding risk, yet no group-by-time interaction test or equivalent analysis is reported to show that coaching effects exceed background changes.
  2. [Results] Results: The manuscript describes 'modest reductions' in CIPS scores for the treatment group without reporting effect sizes, confidence intervals, p-values, or full statistical outputs for the pre-post comparisons. This absence weakens the ability to evaluate the practical magnitude and reliability of the changes relative to the control group's parallel improvement.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from explicitly stating the sample size (n=20) and noting the absence of randomization to better contextualize the quasi-experimental nature for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our quasi-experimental study. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analyses and statistical reporting where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method] Method section: The wait-list control design with a total sample of 20 participants split across two non-randomized project teams lacks the power and controls needed to isolate the unique causal effect of the three-session coaching from team dynamics, project timelines, and natural maturation. The control group's improvement during the observation phase directly illustrates this confounding risk, yet no group-by-time interaction test or equivalent analysis is reported to show that coaching effects exceed background changes.

    Authors: We agree that the small sample size and non-randomized team-based assignment represent inherent limitations of this quasi-experimental design in a real-world SE context, and that the control group's parallel improvement underscores the influence of contextual and temporal factors. To directly address the request for an interaction test, we have added a group-by-time analysis (using a mixed ANOVA) to the Results section. This test shows no significant interaction, consistent with our interpretation that coaching effects did not exceed background changes. We have also expanded the Limitations subsection to explicitly discuss statistical power constraints and the exploratory nature of the study. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The manuscript describes 'modest reductions' in CIPS scores for the treatment group without reporting effect sizes, confidence intervals, p-values, or full statistical outputs for the pre-post comparisons. This absence weakens the ability to evaluate the practical magnitude and reliability of the changes relative to the control group's parallel improvement.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. We have revised the Results section to include Cohen's d effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for the pre-post CIPS changes in both groups. These details, along with the full descriptive statistics, are now presented in a new summary table. This allows readers to better assess the practical significance and compare the magnitude of changes across conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical quasi-experiment with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper reports a quasi-experimental study using a wait-list control design with 20 participants and established scales (CIPS, WHO-5, SWLS, PANAS). It presents direct pre-post score comparisons and non-participant observations without equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or modeling. Central claims rest on observed data and contextual interpretation rather than any self-referential definitions, predictions derived from fits, or load-bearing self-citations. No ansatzes or uniqueness theorems are invoked, so the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks like the validated instruments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of standard psychological scales and the assumption that the quasi-experimental design can separate intervention effects from team and temporal confounds in a small sample.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS) provides a valid and reliable measure of impostor feelings in early-career software engineers.
    Study uses CIPS scores as primary outcome without additional validation in the SE population.
  • domain assumption The wait-list control plus non-participant observation design adequately controls for time, project context, and other non-coaching influences.
    Interpretation that control improvements reflect contextual factors rather than design limitations rests on this premise.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5575 in / 1363 out tokens · 51873 ms · 2026-05-15T22:28:42.804447+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Paula Arquioli Adriani, Paula Hino, Mônica Taminato, Meiry Fernanda Pinto Okuno, Odilon Vieira Santos, and Hugo Fernandes. 2024. Non-violent communi- cation as a technology in interpersonal relationships in health work: a scoping review.BMC health services research24, 1 (2024), 289

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Abdullah Al Lawati, Azzan Al-Wahshi, Tamadhir Al-Mahrouqi, Younis Al- Mufargi, Salman Al Shukaily, Hamood Al Aufi, Ismail Al-Shehhi, Alazhar Al Azri, and Hamed Al-Sinawi. 2025. The Prevalence of Imposter Syndrome and Its Asso- ciation with Psychological Distress: A Cross-Sectional Study.Behavioral Sciences 15, 7 (2025), 986

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Adam Alami, Mansooreh Zahedi, and Oliver Krancher. 2023. Antecedents of psychological safety in agile software development teams.Information and Software Technology162 (2023), 107267

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Kimberly Allen. 2016. Roots of coaching psychology. InTheory, research, and practical guidelines for family life coaching. Springer, 21–38

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Albert Bandura et al. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action.Englewood Cliffs, NJ1986, 23-28 (1986), 2

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Naijean S Bernard, Stephen J Dollinger, and Nerella V Ramaniah. 2002. Apply- ing the big five personality factors to the impostor phenomenon.Journal of personality Assessment78, 2 (2002), 321–333

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Victor R Basili-Gianluigi Caldiera and H Dieter Rombach. 1994. Goal question metric paradigm.Encyclopedia of software engineering1, 528-532 (1994), 6

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Donald T Campbell and HW Riecken. 1968. Quasi-experimental design.Interna- tional encyclopedia of the social sciences5, 3 (1968), 259–263

    work page 1968

  9. [9]

    Kelly A Cawcutt, Pauline Clance, and Shikha Jain. 2021. Bias, burnout, and imposter phenomenon: the negative impact of under-recognized Intersectionality. Women’s Health Reports2, 1 (2021), 643–647

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Lidiany Cerqueira, Sávio Freire, Danilo Ferreira Neves, João Pedro Silva Bastos, Beatriz Santana, Rodrigo Spínola, Manoel Mendonça, and José Amancio Macedo Santos. 2024. Empathy and its effects on software practitioners’ well-being and mental health.IEEE Software41, 4 (2024), 95–104

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Pauline R. Clance. 1985.Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS). FromThe Impostor Phenomenon: When Success Makes You Feel Like A Fake(pp. 20-22). Bantam Books, Toronto. Copyright 1985 by Pauline Rose Clance, Ph.D., ABPP. Use by permission of Dr. Pauline Rose Clance. Do not reproduce/copy/post online/distribute without permission from Pauline Rose Clance. ...

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    1985.The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your success

    Pauline Rose Clance. 1985.The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your success. Peachtree Pub Limited

    work page 1985

  13. [13]

    Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Ament Imes. 1978. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention.Psychotherapy: Theory, research & practice15, 3 (1978), 241

    work page 1978

  14. [14]

    Geoff Cumming. 2014. The new statistics: Why and how.Psychological science 25, 1 (2014), 7–29

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Erik De Haan and Viktor O Nilsson. 2023. What can we know about the effective- ness of coaching? A meta-analysis based only on randomized controlled trials. Academy of Management Learning & Education22, 4 (2023), 641–661

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    ED Diener, Robert A Emmons, Randy J Larsen, and Sharon Griffin. 1985. The satisfaction with life scale.Journal of personality assessment49, 1 (1985), 71–75

    work page 1985

  17. [17]

    Amy Edmondson. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.Administrative science quarterly44, 2 (1999), 350–383

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    Will JG Evers, André Brouwers, and Welko Tomic. 2006. A quasi-experimental study on management coaching effectiveness.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research58, 3 (2006), 174

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Ramona Fimiani, Jessica Leonardi, Bernard Gorman, Francesco Gazzillo, et al

    work page

  20. [20]

    Interpersonal guilt, impostor phenomenon, depression, and anxiety.Psy- chology hub38, 2 (2021), 31–40

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Anthony M Grant. 2003. The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacog- nition and mental health.Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 31, 3 (2003), 253–263

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Paloma Guenes, Joan Leite, Rafael Tomaz, Allysson Allex Araujo, Jean Natividade, Baldassarrem Maria Teresa, and Marcos Kalinowski. 2025. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Coaching to Mitigate the Impostor Phenomenon in Early-Career Software Engineers. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17433863 [Data set]. 19th Interna- tional Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17433863 2025

  23. [23]

    Paloma Guenes, Rafael Tomaz, Marcos Kalinowski, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2024. Impostor Phenomenon in Software Engineers. In Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society(Lisbon, Portugal)(ICSE-SEIS’24). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 96–106. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3639475.3640114 2024

  24. [24]

    Paloma Guenes, Rafael Tomaz, Bianca Trinkenreich, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Marcos Kalinowski. 2025. Impostor Phenomenon Among Software Engineers: Investigating Gender Differences and Well-Being. In2025 IEEE/ACM Sixth Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GEICSE). IEEE, 33–40

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Daniel P Gullifor, William L Gardner, Elizabeth P Karam, Farzaneh Noghani, and Claudia C Cogliser. 2024. The impostor phenomenon at work: A systematic evidence-based review, conceptual development, and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior45, 2 (2024), 234–251

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Rashina Hoda. 2021. Socio-technical grounded theory for software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering48, 10 (2021), 3808–3832

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Ms Sadia Islam, Mussarat Jabeen Khan, Sumaira Naz Awan, Ms Ayesha Jahangi, and Ms Awwabah Rufarakh. 2024. Effect of Imposter Phenomenon on Life Satisfaction among University Teachers: Role of Perfectionism as Moderator. Journal Of Psychology, Health And Social Challenges2, 02 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Sabine Junker, Martin Pömmer, and Eva Traut-Mattausch. 2021. The impact of cognitive-behavioural stress management coaching on changes in cognitive appraisal and the stress response: a field experiment.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice14, 2 (2021), 184–201

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Daniël Lakens. 2013. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.Frontiers in psychology4 (2013), 863

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Stephen MacGabhann, Phillip Newman, Jeremy Witchalls, Rebecca Dowse, Gor- don Waddington, and Stephen Cobley. 2025. Why do Some Respond and Develop more from Coaching than Others? A Systematic Review of Coachability and Its Constituent Components: S. MacGabhann et al.Sports Medicine(2025), 1–43

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Cristina Magro. 2022. From hiding to sharing. a descriptive phenomenological study on the experience of being coached for impostor syndrome.International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring(2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    They overestimate me all the time:

    Sucharita Maji. 2021. “They overestimate me all the time:” Exploring imposter phenomenon among Indian female software engineers.Metamorphosis20, 2 (2021), 55–64

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Karina KL Mak, Sabina Kleitman, and Maree J Abbott. 2019. Impostor phenome- non measurement scales: a systematic review.Frontiers in Psychology10 (2019), 671

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Gloria Mbokota and Alison Reid. 2022. The role of group coaching in developing leadership effectiveness in a business school leadership development programme. South African Journal of Business Management53, 1 (2022), 3105

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Rory O’Brien McElwee and Tricia J Yurak. 2007. Feeling versus acting like an impostor: Real feelings of fraudulence or self-presentation?Individual Differences Research5, 3 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    Mirjam Neureiter and Eva Traut-Mattausch. 2016. An inner barrier to career development: Preconditions of the impostor phenomenon and consequences for career development.Frontiers in psychology7 (2016), 48

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Agnes Norbury, Quentin Dercon, Tobias U Hauser, Raymond J Dolan, and Quentin JM Huys. 2025. Learning training as a cognitive restructuring interven- tion.Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging(2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Mats Nylén-Eriksen, Ann Kristin Bjørnnes, Hege Hafstad, Irene Lie, Ellen Karine Grov, and Mariela Loreto Lara-Cabrera. 2022. Validating the five-item World Health Organization well-being index.International journal of environmental research and public health19, 18 (2022), 11489

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Tatalina Oliveira, Ann Barcomb, Ronnie De Souza Santos, Helda Barros, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, and César França. 2024. Navigating the path of women in software engineering: From academia to industry. InProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society. 154–165

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Francie Ostrower. 1998. Nonparticipant observation as an introduction to quali- tative research.Teaching Sociology26, 1 (1998), 57–61

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    Stephen Palmer. 2007. PRACTICE: A model suitable for coaching, counselling, psychotherapy and stress management.The Coaching Psychologist3, 2 (2007), 71–77

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Be Pannell. 2021. Adult development and positive psychology coaching. In Positive psychology coaching in the workplace. Springer, 357–373

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Emma Para, Philippe Dubreuil, Paule Miquelon, and Charles Martin-Krumm

    work page

  44. [44]

    Frontiers in Psychology15 (2024), 1360540

    Interventions addressing the impostor phenomenon: a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology15 (2024), 1360540

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Stefanie Richter, Llewellyn E Van Zyl, Lara C Roll, and Marius W Stander. 2021. Positive psychological coaching tools and techniques: A systematic review and classification.Frontiers in psychiatry12 (2021), 667200

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Julian B Rotter. 1954. Social learning and clinical psychology. (1954)

    work page 1954

  47. [47]

    Jaruwan Sakulku. 2011. The impostor phenomenon.The Journal of Behavioral Science6, 1 (2011), 75–97

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    Janice Singer and Norman G. Vinson. 2003. Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering28, 12 (2003), 1171–1180. Guenes et al

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    Alvin Teh, Elisa Baniassad, Dirk Van Rooy, and Clive Boughton. 2011. Social psychology and software teams: Establishing task-effective group norms.IEEE software29, 4 (2011), 53–58

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Tim Theeboom, Bianca Beersma, and Annelies EM Van Vianen. 2014. Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.The journal of positive psychology9, 1 (2014), 1–18

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Tien Rahayu Tulili, Andrea Capiluppi, and Ayushi Rastogi. 2023. Burnout in software engineering: A systematic mapping study.Information and Software Technology155 (2023), 107116

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Jennifer A Villwock, Lindsay B Sobin, Lindsey A Koester, and Tucker M Harris

    work page

  53. [53]

    Impostor syndrome and burnout among American medical students: a pilot study.International journal of medical education7 (2016), 364

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology54, 6 (1988), 1063

    work page 1988

  55. [55]

    2024.Experimentation in Software Engineering

    Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2024.Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Nature

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Mirjam Zanchetta, Sabine Junker, Anna-Maria Wolf, and Eva Traut-Mattausch

    work page

  57. [57]

    Overcoming the fear that haunts your success

    “Overcoming the fear that haunts your success”–the effectiveness of interventions for reducing the impostor phenomenon.Frontiers in psychology11 (2020), 405

    work page 2020