| Dimension . | Colocation effect . | Relative effect . | Relative to baseline . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Organizations | |||
| within big-tech firm | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.01 |
| big-tech firm involved | 0.20 | 0.02 | |
| within multi-establishment firm | 3.48 | 0.99 | 0.38 |
| multi-establishment firm involved | 3.51 | 0.38 | |
| within large firm | 0.59 | 0.76 | 0.06 |
| large firm involved | 0.78 | 0.08 | |
| Panel B: Quality | |||
| above-median followers | 6.64 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| below-median followers | 9.16 | 0.99 | |
| above-median forks | 8.97 | 0.81 | 0.97 |
| below-median forks | 11.07 | 1.20 | |
| with stars | 6.49 | 0.41 | 0.70 |
| no stars | 15.80 | 1.71 | |
| Panel C: User type | |||
| above-median user experience | 6.00 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| below-median user experience | 9.75 | 1.05 | |
| above-median experience differential | 4.36 | 0.39 | 0.47 |
| below-median experience differential | 11.08 | 1.20 | |
| common programming language | 8.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| no common programming language | 8.13 | 0.88 | |
| Panel D: Collaboration intensity | |||
| strong tie, via project | 11.23 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
| weak tie, via project | 7.16 | 0.77 | |
| above-median project commits | 13.00 | 4.36 | 1.40 |
| below-median project commits | 2.98 | 0.32 | |
| strong tie, via commits | 13.05 | 2.54 | 1.41 |
| weak tie, via commits | 5.12 | 0.55 | |
| Panel E: Project type | |||
| above-median users | 6.13 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| below-median users | 18.47 | 1.99 | |
| above-median commits | 8.64 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| below-median commits | 12.47 | 1.35 | |
| above-median project age | 6.38 | 0.38 | 0.69 |
| below-median project age | 16.99 | 1.83 |
| Dimension . | Colocation effect . | Relative effect . | Relative to baseline . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Organizations | |||
| within big-tech firm | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.01 |
| big-tech firm involved | 0.20 | 0.02 | |
| within multi-establishment firm | 3.48 | 0.99 | 0.38 |
| multi-establishment firm involved | 3.51 | 0.38 | |
| within large firm | 0.59 | 0.76 | 0.06 |
| large firm involved | 0.78 | 0.08 | |
| Panel B: Quality | |||
| above-median followers | 6.64 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| below-median followers | 9.16 | 0.99 | |
| above-median forks | 8.97 | 0.81 | 0.97 |
| below-median forks | 11.07 | 1.20 | |
| with stars | 6.49 | 0.41 | 0.70 |
| no stars | 15.80 | 1.71 | |
| Panel C: User type | |||
| above-median user experience | 6.00 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| below-median user experience | 9.75 | 1.05 | |
| above-median experience differential | 4.36 | 0.39 | 0.47 |
| below-median experience differential | 11.08 | 1.20 | |
| common programming language | 8.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| no common programming language | 8.13 | 0.88 | |
| Panel D: Collaboration intensity | |||
| strong tie, via project | 11.23 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
| weak tie, via project | 7.16 | 0.77 | |
| above-median project commits | 13.00 | 4.36 | 1.40 |
| below-median project commits | 2.98 | 0.32 | |
| strong tie, via commits | 13.05 | 2.54 | 1.41 |
| weak tie, via commits | 5.12 | 0.55 | |
| Panel E: Project type | |||
| above-median users | 6.13 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| below-median users | 18.47 | 1.99 | |
| above-median commits | 8.64 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| below-median commits | 12.47 | 1.35 | |
| above-median project age | 6.38 | 0.38 | 0.69 |
| below-median project age | 16.99 | 1.83 |
Notes: Table shows coefficient estimates of the colocation effect in Equation (3) for above- and below-threshold collaboration networks with respect to different characteristics. The relative effect indicates the ratio between the colocation effect in above- and below-threshold networks. The relative-to-baseline effect is the relation to the colocation effect from the preferred model of 9.26. More detailed information on each model is provided in separate tables in the Supplementary Appendix. Sources: GHTorrent, Bureau of Economic Analysis, own calculations.
| Dimension . | Colocation effect . | Relative effect . | Relative to baseline . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Organizations | |||
| within big-tech firm | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.01 |
| big-tech firm involved | 0.20 | 0.02 | |
| within multi-establishment firm | 3.48 | 0.99 | 0.38 |
| multi-establishment firm involved | 3.51 | 0.38 | |
| within large firm | 0.59 | 0.76 | 0.06 |
| large firm involved | 0.78 | 0.08 | |
| Panel B: Quality | |||
| above-median followers | 6.64 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| below-median followers | 9.16 | 0.99 | |
| above-median forks | 8.97 | 0.81 | 0.97 |
| below-median forks | 11.07 | 1.20 | |
| with stars | 6.49 | 0.41 | 0.70 |
| no stars | 15.80 | 1.71 | |
| Panel C: User type | |||
| above-median user experience | 6.00 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| below-median user experience | 9.75 | 1.05 | |
| above-median experience differential | 4.36 | 0.39 | 0.47 |
| below-median experience differential | 11.08 | 1.20 | |
| common programming language | 8.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| no common programming language | 8.13 | 0.88 | |
| Panel D: Collaboration intensity | |||
| strong tie, via project | 11.23 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
| weak tie, via project | 7.16 | 0.77 | |
| above-median project commits | 13.00 | 4.36 | 1.40 |
| below-median project commits | 2.98 | 0.32 | |
| strong tie, via commits | 13.05 | 2.54 | 1.41 |
| weak tie, via commits | 5.12 | 0.55 | |
| Panel E: Project type | |||
| above-median users | 6.13 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| below-median users | 18.47 | 1.99 | |
| above-median commits | 8.64 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| below-median commits | 12.47 | 1.35 | |
| above-median project age | 6.38 | 0.38 | 0.69 |
| below-median project age | 16.99 | 1.83 |
| Dimension . | Colocation effect . | Relative effect . | Relative to baseline . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Organizations | |||
| within big-tech firm | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.01 |
| big-tech firm involved | 0.20 | 0.02 | |
| within multi-establishment firm | 3.48 | 0.99 | 0.38 |
| multi-establishment firm involved | 3.51 | 0.38 | |
| within large firm | 0.59 | 0.76 | 0.06 |
| large firm involved | 0.78 | 0.08 | |
| Panel B: Quality | |||
| above-median followers | 6.64 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| below-median followers | 9.16 | 0.99 | |
| above-median forks | 8.97 | 0.81 | 0.97 |
| below-median forks | 11.07 | 1.20 | |
| with stars | 6.49 | 0.41 | 0.70 |
| no stars | 15.80 | 1.71 | |
| Panel C: User type | |||
| above-median user experience | 6.00 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| below-median user experience | 9.75 | 1.05 | |
| above-median experience differential | 4.36 | 0.39 | 0.47 |
| below-median experience differential | 11.08 | 1.20 | |
| common programming language | 8.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| no common programming language | 8.13 | 0.88 | |
| Panel D: Collaboration intensity | |||
| strong tie, via project | 11.23 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
| weak tie, via project | 7.16 | 0.77 | |
| above-median project commits | 13.00 | 4.36 | 1.40 |
| below-median project commits | 2.98 | 0.32 | |
| strong tie, via commits | 13.05 | 2.54 | 1.41 |
| weak tie, via commits | 5.12 | 0.55 | |
| Panel E: Project type | |||
| above-median users | 6.13 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| below-median users | 18.47 | 1.99 | |
| above-median commits | 8.64 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| below-median commits | 12.47 | 1.35 | |
| above-median project age | 6.38 | 0.38 | 0.69 |
| below-median project age | 16.99 | 1.83 |
Notes: Table shows coefficient estimates of the colocation effect in Equation (3) for above- and below-threshold collaboration networks with respect to different characteristics. The relative effect indicates the ratio between the colocation effect in above- and below-threshold networks. The relative-to-baseline effect is the relation to the colocation effect from the preferred model of 9.26. More detailed information on each model is provided in separate tables in the Supplementary Appendix. Sources: GHTorrent, Bureau of Economic Analysis, own calculations.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
