Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although issues of open source software are created to discuss and solve technical problems, conversations can become heated, with discussants getting angry and/or agitated for a variety of reasons, such as poor suggestions or violation of community conventions. To prevent and mitigate discussions from getting heated, tools like GitHub have introduced the ability to lock issue discussions that violate the code of conduct or other community guidelines. Despite some early research on locked issues, there is a lack of understanding of how communities use this feature and of potential threats to validity for researchers relying on a dataset of locked issues as an oracle for heated discussions. To address this gap, we (i) quantitatively analyzed 79 GitHub projects that have at least one issue locked as too heated, and (ii) qualitatively analyzed all issues locked as too heated of the 79 projects, a total of 205 issues comprising 5,511 comments. We found that projects have different behaviors when locking issues: while 54 locked less than 10% of their closed issues, 14 projects locked more than 90% of their closed issues. Additionally, locked issues tend to have a similar number of comments, participants, and emoji reactions to non-locked issues. For the 205 issues locked as too heated, we found that one-third do not contain any uncivil discourse, and only 8.82% of the analyzed comments are actually uncivil. Finally, we found that the locking justifications provided by maintainers do not always match the label used to lock the issue. Based on our results, we identified three pitfalls to avoid when using the GitHub locked issues data and we provide recommendations for researchers and practitioners.
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 | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".