It Takes a Team to Triumph: Collaborative Expert Finding in Community QA Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing complexity and multidisciplinary nature of queries on Community Question Answering (CQA) platforms have rendered the traditional model of individual expert response inadequate. This paper tackles the challenge of identifying a group of experts whose combined expertise can address such complex inquiries collaboratively, leading to more accepted answers. Our approach jointly learns topological and textual information extracted from the CQA environment in an end-to-end fashion. Extensive experiments on several real-life datasets indicate that our approach improves the quality of expert ranks on average 4.6% and 7.1% in terms of NDCG and MAP, respectively, compared to the best baseline. The results also reveal that groups formed by our approach are more collaborative and on average 61.6% of members recommended by our approach are among the true answerers of questions which is around 6.1 times improvement compared to the baselines.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it