Collaborating neuroscience online: The case of the Human Brain Project forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes user interactions on the public-access online forum of the Human Brain Project (HBP), a major European Union-funded neuroscience research initiative, to understand the utility of the Forum for collaborative problem solving. We construct novel data using discussion forum posts and detailed user profiles on the HBP Forum. We find that HBP Forum utilization is comparable to that of a leading general-interest coding platform, and that online usage metrics quickly recovered after an initial Covid-19-related dip. Regression results show that user interactions on the Forum are more active for questions on programming and in HBP core areas. Further, Cox proportional hazard analyses show that such problems are solved faster. Forum posts with users from different countries tend to be discussed more actively but solved slower. Higher shares of administrator support tend to solve problems faster. There are no clear patterns regarding gender and seniority. Our results suggest that building novel collaborative forums can support researchers working on complex topics in challenging times.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".