MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160639803 · doi:10.1145/3411763.3451646

Characterizing Growth and Decline in Online UX Communities

2021· article· en· W3160639803 on OpenAlex
Gillian Chen, Lillio Mok

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamComputer scienceDiversity (politics)User experience designStack (abstract data type)World Wide WebLongevitySociologyHuman–computer interactionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UX practitioners increasingly rely on online communities to collaborate on and discuss complex design problems. Understanding how these platforms flourish is thus of interest to both HCI academia and the broader UX discipline. In this study, we comparatively investigate the longevity of two such groups: the r/userexperience community on Reddit and the UX subforum on Stack Exchange. By quantifying how users post online on aggregate and what users discuss in their individual posts, we find that Reddit has grown consistently as a digital forum for UX practice. In contrast, Stack Exchange has contracted despite being more responsive and being as capable of addressing mainstream UX concepts as Reddit. Discussions of niche, higher-level UX concepts on Stack Exchange also declined disproportionately, leading to less conceptual diversity. Our results therefore contribute an initial comparative understanding of community longevity between online UX platforms.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExpert finding and Q&A systemsFrench-language works237,207