MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387143047 · doi:10.1109/re57278.2023.00020

A Data-Driven Approach for Finding Requirements Relevant Feedback from TikTok and YouTube

2023· article· en· W4387143047 on OpenAlexaff
Manish Sihag, Ze Shi Li, Amanda Dash, Nowshin Nawar Arony, Kezia Devathasan, Neil Ernst, Alexandra Branzan Albu, Daniela Damian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceSocial mediaFocus (optics)MultimediaWorld Wide WebUser requirements documentUser engagementFeature (linguistics)Human–computer interactionSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing importance of videos as a medium for engagement, communication, and content creation makes them critical for organizations to consider for user feedback. However, sifting through vast amounts of video content on social media platforms to extract requirements-relevant feedback is challenging. This study delves into the use of TikTok and YouTube, two widely used social media platforms that focus on video content, in identifying relevant user feedback that may be further refined into requirements using subsequent requirement generation steps. We demonstrate an approach of using videos as a source of user feedback by analyzing audio and visual text, and metadata (i.e., description/title) from 6276 videos of 20 popular products across various industries. We employed state-of-the-art deep learning transformer-based models, and classified 3097 videos consisting of requirements relevant information. We then clustered relevant videos and found multiple requirements relevant feedback themes for each of the 20 products. This feedback can later be refined into requirements artifacts. We found that product ratings (feature, design, performance), bug reports, and usage tutorial are persistent themes from the videos. Video-based social media such as TikTok and YouTube can provide valuable user insights, making them a powerful and novel resource for companies to improve customer-centric 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207