Contributors’ Withdrawal from Online Collaborative Communities: The Case of OpenStreetMap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online collaborative communities are now ubiquitous. Identifying the nature of the events that drive contributors to withdraw from a project is of prime importance to ensure the sustainability of those communities. Previous studies used ad hoc criteria to identify withdrawn contributors, preventing comparisons between results and introducing interpretation biases. This paper compares different methods to identify withdrawn contributors, proposing a probabilistic approach. Withdrawals from the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community are investigated using time series and survival analyses. Survival analysis revealed that participants’ withdrawal pattern compares with the life cycles studied in reliability engineering. For OSM contributors, this life cycle would translate into three phases: “evaluation,” “engagement” and “detachment.” Time series analysis, when compared with the different events that may have affected the motivation of OSM participants over time, showed that an internal conflict about a license change was related to largest bursts of withdrawals in the history of the OSM project. This paper not only illustrates a formal approach to assess withdrawals from online communities, but also sheds new light on contributors’ behavior, their life cycle, and events that may affect the length of their participation in such project.
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 | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".