MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607183772

Online Lurkers Tell Why

2004· article· en· W1607183772 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGeorgetown UniversityUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceOnline communityReading (process)Period (music)Internet privacyData sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Web-based survey of 375 Microsoft Network (MSN) online communities was undertaken to investigate why people do not publicly participate in online discussion groups, i.e., lurk. The most popular reason for lurking, “just reading/browsing is enough”, was noted by more than half of the lurkers (53.9%). Apparently, many lurkers get their needs met through observation rather than public participation. The next but much less prominent reason for lurking is “still learning about the group ” (29.7%,). For many respondents lurking may be an initial temporary period of non-posting, and that once this period is over, they may begin to posting. Most importantly, based on the finding that only 13.2 % of lurkers indicated they were “going to lurk from the outset”, lurking can be a product of the community interaction itself. Implications for future research are drawn and specific suggestions for managing lurking and developing better community tools are proposed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it