Discovering Knowledge-Sharing Communities in Question-Answering Forums
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we define a knowledge-sharing community in a question-answering forum as a set of askers and authoritative users such that, within each community, askers exhibit more homogeneous behavior in terms of their interactions with authoritative users than elsewhere. A procedure for discovering members of such a community is devised. As a case study, we focus on Yahoo! Answers, a large and diverse online question-answering service. Our contribution is twofold. First, we propose a method for automatic identification of authoritative actors in Yahoo! Answers. To this end, we estimate and then model the authority scores of participants as a mixture of gamma distributions. The number of components in the mixture is determined using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), while the parameters of each component are estimated using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. This method allows us to automatically discriminate between authoritative and nonauthoritative users. Second, we represent the forum environment as a type of transactional data such that each transaction summarizes the interaction of an asker with a specific set of authoritative users. Then, to group askers on the basis of their interactions with authoritative users, we propose a parameter-free transaction data clustering algorithm which is based on a novel criterion function. The identified clusters correspond to the communities that we aim to discover. To evaluate the suitability of our clustering algorithm, we conduct a series of experiments on both synthetic data and public real-life data. Finally, we put our approach to work using data from Yahoo! Answers which represent users’ activities over one full year.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it