A Data-Driven Approach for Finding Requirements Relevant Feedback from TikTok and YouTube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".