Too Many User-Reviews! What Should App Developers Look at First?
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
Due to the rapid growth in the number of mobile applications (apps) in the past few years, succeeding in mobile app markets has become ruthless. Online app markets, such as Google Play Store, let users rate apps on a five-star scale and leave feedback. Given the importance of high star-ratings to the success of an app, it is crucial to help developers find the key topics of user-reviews that are significantly related to star-ratings of a given category. Having considered the key topics of user-reviews, app developers can narrow down their effort to the user-reviews that matter to be addressed for receiving higher star-ratings. We study 4,193,549 user-reviews of 623 Android apps that were collected from Google Play Store in ten different categories. The results show that few key topics commonly exist across categories, and each category has a specific set of key topics. We also evaluated the identified key topics with respect to the changes that are made to each version of the apps for 19 months. We observed, for 77 percent of the apps, considering the key topics in the next versions shares a significant relationship with increases in star-ratings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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