Complements and Competitors: The Co-functionality and Co-diffusion of Languages on a Collaborative Coding Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast majority of research on the diffusion of innovations focuses on how one particular idea or technology spreads across a network of connected individuals, or a population more generally. Diffusive processes are typically considered either in isolation. We consider innovations themselves as nodes in a larger network, and look at how individual innovations can spread with or against one another in a larger community of potential adopters. Using a large publicly-available data set, custom-designed measurements, and network analysis methods, we present a temporal analysis of a set of technological innovations. Specifically, we examine how coding languages spread across users on GitHub, an online platform for collaborative coding. By looking at which languages co-appear in individual projects, we develop network based measurements of how frequently languages appear together in the same coding projects (functional cohesion), and how similar two languages are in terms of how often they co-appear with other languages in coding projects (functional equivalence). We also assess two types of diffusion, one form where users of one language become users of an additional language (complementary or 'piggybacking' diffusion), and another where users of one language abandon one language for another (competitive or 'cannibalistic' diffusion). Using MR-QAP Regression Techniques, we find strong evidence that functional cohesion positively predicts complementary diffusion. We also find some evidence that functional equivalence predicts competitive diffusion. More broadly, we find support for the idea that the networks of functional relationships between innovations is important for understanding diffusive processes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".