A systematic mapping study of crowd knowledge enhanced software engineering research using Stack Overflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers continuously interact in crowd-sourced community-based question-answer (Q&A) sites. Reportedly, ∼ 30% of all software professionals visit the most popular Q&A site StackOverflow (SO) every day. Software engineering (SE) research studies are also increasingly using SO data. To find out the trend, implication, impact, and future research potential utilizing SO data, a systematic mapping study needs to be conducted. Following a rigorous reproducible mapping study approach, from 18 reputed SE journals and conferences, we collected 384 SO-based research articles and categorized them into 10 facets (i.e., themes). We found that SO contributes to 85% of SE research compared with popular Q&A sites such as Quora, and Reddit. We found that 18 SE domains directly benefited from SO data whereas Recommender Systems , and API Design and Evolution domains use SO data the most (15% and 16% of all SO-based research studies, respectively). API Design and Evolution , and Machine Learning with/for SE domains have consistent upward publication. Deep Learning Bug Analysis and Code Cloning research areas have the highest potential research impact recently. With the insights, recommendations, and facet-based categorized paper list from this mapping study, SE researchers can find out potential research areas according to their interest to utilize large-scale SO data.
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 | 0.030 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".