Mining Reddit Data to Elicit Students' Requirements During COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven requirements engineering leverages the abundance of openly accessible and crowdsourced information on the web. By incorporating user feedback provided about a software product, such as reviews in mobile app stores, these approaches facilitate the identification of issues, bug fixes, and implementation of change requests. However, relying solely on user feedback about a software product limits the possibility of eliciting all requirements, as users may not always have a clear understanding of their exact needs from the software, despite their wealth of experience with the problem, event, or challenges they encounter and use the software to assist them. In this study, we propose a shift in requirements elicitation, focusing on gathering feedback related to the problem itself rather than relying solely on feedback about the software product. We conducted a case study on student requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic in a higher education institution. We gathered their communications from Reddit during the pandemic and employed multiple machine-learning and natural language processing techniques to identify requirement sentences. We achieved the F-score of 0.79 using Naive Bayes with TF-IDF when benchmarking multiple techniques. The results lead us to believe that mining requirements from communication about a problem are feasible. While we present the preliminary results, we envision a future where these requirements complement conventionally elicited requirements and help to close the requirements gap.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".