MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489432211 · doi:10.32614/rj-2012-009

Who Did What? The Roles of R Package Authors and How to Refer to Them

2012· article· en· W1489432211 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe R Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsActuaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisk formattingR packageComputer scienceCitationSoftware engineeringSoftware packageProgramming languageData scienceSoftwareWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational infrastructure for representing
\npersons and citations has been available
\nin R for several years, but has been restructured
\nthrough enhanced classes "person" and
\n"bibentry" in recent versions of R. The new
\nfeatures include support for the specification of
\nthe roles of package authors (e.g. maintainer,
\nauthor, contributor, translator, etc.) and more
\nflexible formatting/printing tools among various
\nother improvements. Here, we introduce
\nthe new classes and their methods and indicate
\nhow this functionality is employed in the management
\nof R packages. Specifically, we show
\nhow the authors of R packages can be specified
\nalong with their roles in package ´DESCRIPTION´
\nand/or ´CITATION´ files and the citations produced
\nfrom it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it