MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950127321 · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2921343

What Do Programmers Discuss About Blockchain? A Case Study on the Use of Balanced LDA and the Reference Architecture of a Domain to Capture Online Discussions About Blockchain Platforms Across Stack Exchange Communities

2019· article· en· W2950127321 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePopularityDomain (mathematical analysis)BlockchainStack (abstract data type)ArchitectureData scienceWorld Wide WebData miningComputer securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blockchain-related discussions have become increasingly prevalent in programming Q&A websites, such as Stack Overflow and other Stack Exchange communities. Analyzing and understanding those discussions could provide insights about the topics of interest to practitioners, and help the software development and research communities better understand the needs and challenges facing developers as they work in this new domain. Prior studies propose the use of LDA to study the Stack Exchange discussions. However, a simplistic use of LDA would capture the topics in discussions blindly without keeping in mind the variety of the dataset and domain-specific concepts. Specifically, LDA is biased towards larger sized corpora; and LDA-derived topics are not linked to higher level domain-specific concepts. We propose an approach that combines balanced LDA (which ensures that the topics are balanced across a domain) with the reference architecture of a domain to capture and compare the popularity and impact of discussion topics across the Stack Exchange communities. Popularity measures the distribution of interest in discussions, and impact gauges the trend of popularity over time. We made a number of interesting observations, including: (1) Bitcoin, Ethereum, Hyperledger Fabric and Corda are the four most commonly-discussed blockchain platforms on the Stack Exchange communities. (2) A broad range of topics are discussed across the various platforms of distinct layers in our derived reference architecture. (3) The Application layer topics exhibit the highest popularity (33.2 percent) and fastest growth in topic impact since November 2015. (4) The Application, API, Consensus and Network layer topics are discussed across the studied blockchain platforms, but exhibit different distributions in popularity. (5) The impact of architectural layer topics exhibits an upward trend, but is growing at different speeds across the studied blockchain platforms. The breakdown of the topic impact across the architectural layers is relatively stable over time except for the Hyperledger Fabric platform. Based on our findings, we highlighted future directions and provided recommendations for practitioners and researchers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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