MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139236490 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2005.653

User Motivation and Persuasion Strategy for Peer-to-Peer Communities

2005· article· en· W2139236490 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionPeer-to-peerComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Quality (philosophy)Peer reviewInternet privacyPsychologyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, peer-to-peer systems have become more and more popular, especially with some successful applications like Napster and KaZaA. However, how to motivate user participation in peer-to-peer systems remains an open question for researchers. If few users are willing to participate in the community or make contributions to it, the peer-to-peer system will never become successful. To address the problem, this paper proposes a motivation strategy based on persuasion theories of social psychology. The main idea is to introduce a set of hierarchical memberships into p2p communities and reward active users with better quality of services. We have applied this strategy to a p2p system called Comtella and launched a study to test its effectiveness. The results of the study show that our motivation strategy is capable of stimulating the users to participate more actively and make more contributions to the community.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207