MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074549053 · doi:10.5555/2820518.2820578

An insight into the unresolved questions at stack overflow

2015· article· en· W2074549053 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

VenueMining Software Repositories · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStack (abstract data type)Computer sciencePopularityRecallData scienceExploratory researchInformation retrievalTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyProgramming languagePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a significant number of questions at Stack Overflow, none of the posted answers were accepted as solutions. Acceptance of an answer indicates that the answer actually solves the discussed problem in the question, and the question is answered sufficiently. In this paper, we investigate 3,956 such unresolved questions using an exploratory study where we analyze four important aspects of those questions, their answers and the corresponding users that partially explain the observed scenario. We then propose a prediction model by employing five metrics related to user behaviour, topics and popularity of question, which predicts if the best answer for a question at Stack Overflow might remain unaccepted or not. Experiments using 8,057 questions show that the model can predict unresolved questions with 78.70% precision and 76.10% recall.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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