Bibliographic record
Abstract
User reviews of apps are critically important in open mobile application markets, including the App Store and Google Play. Analyzing app reviews helps reveal any usability issues faced, desired improvements, and could also provide insights to guide future app designs. As a result, there is a growing demand for analysis of app reviews to enhance app usability, user experience, and hence improve overall app adoption. This is particularly true for apps targeting sensitive issues such as those promoting mental health. In this paper, we present the results of an analysis of 106 mental health app reviews from the App Store and Google Play. We mined and analyzed 1236 distinct reviews to identify usability issues. We classified app usability issues into six categories: bugs, poor user interface design, data loss, battery and memory usage issue, lack of guidance and explanation, and internet connectivity issue. The results could guide app designers on how to design apps especially those tailored to mental health to improve their usability.
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 | 0.060 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".