Automatic Identification of Rollback Edit with Reasons in Stack Overflow Q&A Site
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
Crowd-sourced developer forums, such as Stack Overflow (SO), rely on edits from users to improve the quality of the shared knowledge. Unfortunately, suggested edits in SO are frequently rejected by rollbacks due to undesired edits or violation of editing guidelines. Such rollbacks could frustrate and demotivate users to provide future suggestions. We thus need to warn a user of a potential rollback so that he can improve the suggested edit and thus increase its likelihood of acceptance. This study proposes to help users with an automated machine learning classification model that can warn them of potential rollbacks to their suggested edits. We present the conceptual design of EditEx, an online tool that can guide SO users during their editing by highlighting the potential causes of rollback. We offer details of an empirical study to assess the accuracy of the classifiers and a user study to evaluate the effectiveness of EditEx.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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