Summaries of the Library-2-LMS Conference Keynote Address and Presentations

Synopsis of the keynote address and various sessions by the moderators

Two Species Evolutionary Game Model of User and Moderator Dynamics

We construct a two species evolutionary game model of an online society consisting of ordinary users and behavior enforcers (moderators). Among themselves, moderators play a coordination game choosing between being "positive" or "negative" (or harsh) while ordinary users play prisoner's dilemma. When interacting, moderators motivate good behavior (cooperation) among the users through punitive actions while the moderators themselves are encouraged or discouraged in their strategic choice by these interactions. We show the following results: (i) We show that the $\omega$-limit set of the proposed system is sensitive both to the degree of punishment and the proportion of moderators in closed form. (ii) We demonstrate that the basin of attraction for the Pareto optimal strategy $(\text{Cooperate},\text{Positive})$ can be computed exactly. (iii) We demonstrate that for certain initial conditions the system is self-regulating. These results partially explain the stability of many online users communities such as Reddit. We illustrate our results with examples from this online system.Comment: 8 pages, 4 figures, submitted to 2012 ASE Conference on Social Informatic

Triaging Content Severity in Online Mental Health Forums

Mental health forums are online communities where people express their issues and seek help from moderators and other users. In such forums, there are often posts with severe content indicating that the user is in acute distress and there is a risk of attempted self-harm. Moderators need to respond to these severe posts in a timely manner to prevent potential self-harm. However, the large volume of daily posted content makes it difficult for the moderators to locate and respond to these critical posts. We present a framework for triaging user content into four severity categories which are defined based on indications of self-harm ideation. Our models are based on a feature-rich classification framework which includes lexical, psycholinguistic, contextual and topic modeling features. Our approaches improve the state of the art in triaging the content severity in mental health forums by large margins (up to 17% improvement over the F-1 scores). Using the proposed model, we analyze the mental state of users and we show that overall, long-term users of the forum demonstrate a decreased severity of risk over time. Our analysis on the interaction of the moderators with the users further indicates that without an automatic way to identify critical content, it is indeed challenging for the moderators to provide timely response to the users in need.Comment: Accepted for publication in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2017

Shaping the future of Southern Nevada moderators & panelists biographies

Moderators & Panelists biographie

The impact of asking intention or self-prediction questions on subsequent behavior: a meta-analysis

The current meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of the impact of asking intention and self-prediction questions on rates of subsequent behavior, and examined mediators and moderators of this question–behavior effect (QBE). Random-effects meta-analysis on 116 published tests of the effect indicated that intention/prediction questions have a small positive effect on behavior (d+ = 0.24). Little support was observed for attitude accessibility, cognitive dissonance, behavioral simulation, or processing fluency explanations of the QBE. Multivariate analyses indicated significant effects of social desirability of behavior/behavior domain (larger effects for more desirable and less risky behaviors), difficulty of behavior (larger effects for easy-to-perform behaviors), and sample type (larger effects among student samples). Although this review controls for co-occurrence of moderators in multivariate analyses, future primary research should systematically vary moderators in fully factorial designs. Further primary research is also needed to unravel the mechanisms underlying different variants of the QBE

Participatory Decision Making: A Field Experiment on Manipulating the Votes

Many believe that deliberative democracy, where individuals discuss alternatives before voting on them, should result in collectively superior outcomes because voters become better informed and decisions are justified using reason. These deliberations typically involve a moderator, however, whose role has been under-examined. We conduct a field experiment to test the effects moderators may have. Participants in a class of 107 students voted on options over their writing and exam requirements. Before voting, they participated in group discussions of about five people each with one moderator. Some (randomly assigned) moderators remained neutral throughout, while others made limited interventions, supporting a specific option. We find a substantial moderator effect. Our experiment is structured like deliberations used world-wide to make community decisions and thus should have some external validity. The results indicate that if organized interest groups had influence over moderators, they might be able to hijack a deliberative decision-making process.Participatory Decision Making, Field Experiment, Voting.

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Erratum Re: “Coping With Racism: Moderators of the Discrimination—Distress Link Among Mexican-Origin Adolescents”

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Child Dev This corrects the article "Coping With Racism: Moderators of the Discrimination—Adjustment Link Among Mexican-Origin Adolescents" in Child Dev, volume 89 on page e293

Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package

The metafor package provides functions for conducting meta-analyses in R. The package includes functions for fitting the meta-analytic fixed- and random-effects models and allows for the inclusion of moderators variables (study-level covariates) in these models. Meta-regression analyses with continuous and categorical moderators can be conducted in this way. Functions for the Mantel-Haenszel and Peto's one-step method for meta-analyses of 2 x 2 table data are also available. Finally, the package provides various plot functions (for example, for forest, funnel, and radial plots) and functions for assessing the model fit, for obtaining case diagnostics, and for tests of publication bias.