SUMMIT: Scaffolding Open Source Software Issue Discussion Through Summarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue Tracking Systems (ITS) often support commenting on software issues, which creates a space for discussions centered around bug fixes and improvements to the software. For Open Source Software (OSS) projects, issue discussions serve as a crucial collaboration mechanism for diverse stakeholders. However, these discussions can become lengthy and entangled, making it hard to find relevant information and make further contributions. In this work, we study the use of summarization to aid users in collaboratively making sense of OSS issue discussion threads. Through an empirical investigation, we reveal a complex picture of how summarization is used by issue users in practice as a strategy to help develop and manage their discussions. Grounded on the different objectives served by the summaries and the outcome of our formative study with OSS stakeholders, we identified a set of guidelines to inform the design of collaborative summarization tools for OSS issue discussions. We then developed SUMMIT, a tool that allows issue users to collectively construct summaries of different types of information discussed, as well as a set of comments representing continuous conversations within the thread. To alleviate the manual effort involved, SUMMIT uses techniques that automatically detect information types and summarize texts to facilitate the generation of these summaries. A lab user study indicates that, as the users of SUMMIT, OSS stakeholders adopted different strategies to acquire information on issue threads. Furthermore, different features of SUMMIT effectively lowered the perceived difficulty of locating information from issue threads and enabled the users to prioritize their effort. Overall, our findings demonstrated the potential of SUMMIT, and the corresponding design guidelines, in supporting users to acquire information from lengthy discussions in ITSs. Our work sheds light on key design considerations and features when exploring crowd-based and machine-learning-enabled instruments for asynchronous collaboration on complex tasks such as OSS development.
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 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".