How the R community creates and curates knowledge
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
One of the many effects of social media in software development is the flourishing of very large communities of practice where members share a common interest, such as programming languages, frameworks, and tools. These communities of practice use many different communication channels but little is known about how these communities create, share, and curate knowledge using such channels. In this paper, we report a qualitative study of how one community of practice---the R software development community---creates and curates knowledge associated with questions and answers (Q&A) in two of its main communication channels: the R-tag in Stack Overflow and the R-users mailing list. The results reveal that knowledge is created and curated in two main forms: participatory, where multiple members explicitly collaborate to build knowledge, and crowdsourced, where individuals work independently of each other. The contribution of this paper is a characterization of knowledge types that are exchanged by these communities of practice, including a description of the reasons why members choose one channel over the other. Finally, this paper enumerates a set of recommendations to assist practitioners in the use of multiple channels for Q&A.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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