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
Online Question and Answer communities (Q&As) are popular spaces for learning and sharing knowledge. However, prior research suggests that Q&As may not be appealing to and inclusive of men and women, with absent social considerations listed as a potential contributing factor. We investigate how additional community presence information can affect users' perceptions of and engagement with a Q&A for graphic design software. Through a 10-day task-based field study with 30 participants (14 women, 14 men, 2 non-binary), we uncover how community presence information can humanize the Q&A and play a role in promoting an inclusive environment. On the other hand, some participants question if community presence information belongs in a Q&A and describe some privacy implications. The women in our sample also talked about the importance of diverse community demographics, while we did not observe this sentiment expressed by the men. Our findings contribute an understanding of how users perceive the role of community presence information within a Q&A. We also discuss how this information might impact women's future participation and engagement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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