Improving the detection of community smells through socio‐technical and sentiment analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Open source software development is regarded as a collaborative activity in which developers interact to build a software product. Such a human collaboration is described as an organized effort of the “social” activity of organizations, individuals, and stakeholders, which can affect the development community and the open source project health. Negative effects of the development community manifest typically in the form of community smells, which represent symptoms of organizational and social issues within the open source software development community that often lead to additional project costs and reduced software quality. Recognizing the advantages of the early detection of potential community smells in a software project, we introduce a novel approach that learns from various community organizational, social, and emotional aspects to provide an automated support for detecting community smells. In particular, our approach learns from a set of interleaving organizational–social and emotional symptoms that characterize the existence of community smell instances in a software project. We build a multi‐label learning model to detect 10 common types of community smells. We use the ensemble classifier chain (ECC) model that transforms multi‐label problems into several single‐label problems, which are solved using genetic programming (GP) to find the optimal detection rules for each smell type. To evaluate the performance of our approach, we conducted an empirical study on a benchmark of 143 open source projects. The statistical tests of our results show that our approach can detect community smells with an average F‐measure of 93%, achieving a better performance compared to different state‐of‐the‐art techniques. Furthermore, we investigate the most influential community‐related metrics to identify each community smell type.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".