MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889921168

Role of reputation cues in trust formation for a developer's decision to join Open Source Software projects.

2018· article· en· W2889921168 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

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoin (topology)ReputationComputer scienceOpen source softwareOpen sourceSoftwareSoftware engineeringKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Level of contributors' activity around an Open Source Software (OSS) project is one of the key factors in terms of its survival and success. There are several factors that affect a developer's decision to join an OSS project, yet little research examined the influence of third-party assessments on a developer's intention to join a project. Drawing on signaling theory, this manuscript explores how third-party assessment can influence a developers' decision to join an OSS project. In order to test it, vignette survey study was conducted manipulating reputation, development experience, and a number of current OSS projects of existing developers in the OSS project. The findings suggest that all three signals have a positive influence on developer's decision to join the OSS project. This suggests that projects seeking to expand the number of contributing developers should consider offering information about its "star developers".

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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