Leveraging Crowdsourced Technical Documentation: Building a Command Thesaurus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its inception, the Internet has enabled motivated members of an application’s user base to compose and self-publish technical documentation, manuals and tutorials. These distributed acts of self-publishing can be thought of as the implicit crowdsourcing of technical support. In this paper, we leverage user-generated documentation to construct what we call a “command thesaurus”. A command thesaurus groups together semantically related words, bridging the gap between the vocabulary expressed by users and the (sometimes highly technical) terminology employed by software applications. In this work, we outline one potential approach for the automatic generation of a command thesaurus, and we present some initial experiments suggesting that the proposed approach is feasible. We then conclude by describing various compelling applications of these newly generated resources. In particular, command thesauri may find use in search-driven interfaces, and in tools that translate tutorials from one application to another.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".