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
When a user looks for an Android app in Google Play Store, a number of apps appear in a specific rank. Mobile apps with higher ranks are more likely to be noticed and downloaded by users. The goal of this work is to understand the evolution of ranks and identify the variables that share a strong relationship with ranks. We explore 900 apps with a total of 4,878,011 user-reviews in 30 app development areas. We discover 13 clusters of rank trends. We observe that the majority of the subject apps (i.e., 61%) dropped in the rankings over the two years of our study. By applying a regression model, we find the variables that statistically significantly explain the rank trends, such as the number of releases. Moreover, we build a mixed effects model to study the changes in ranks across apps and various versions of each app. We find that not all the variables that common-wisdom would deem important have a significant relationship with ranks. Furthermore, app developers should not be afraid of a late entry into the market as new apps can achieve higher ranks than existing apps. Finally, we present the findings to 51 developers. According to the feedback, the findings can help app developers to achieve better ranks in Google Play Store.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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