A Social Capital Perspective of Participant Contribution in Open Source Communities: The Case of Linux
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
Drawing upon a perspective of social capital, we investigate the extent to which several key dimensions of social capital accumulated during the growing stage of thread evolution influence both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of participant contribution in open source software development communities. To validate our hypotheses, we collected data from 223 Linux kernel threads, in which intensive intellectual and social interactions occur among the participants. The results suggest that the structural dimension of network capital (network centralization) is significantly associated with contribution quality, but not with contribution quantity. In contrast, the relational (network strength) and the dynamic (network growing speed) dimensions of network capital are significantly associated with contribution quantity, but not with contribution quality. The governance dimension (administrator participation) of network capital was found to be negatively significant on both the quality and quantity of contribution. Finally, no significant relationship was found between contribution quantity and contribution quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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