Intensive metrics for the study of the evolution of open source projects: Case studies from Apache Software Foundation projects
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
Based on the empirical evidence that the ratio of email messages in public mailing lists to versioning system commits has remained relatively constant along the history of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), this paper has as goal to study what can be inferred from such a metric for projects of the ASF. We have found that the metric seems to be an intensive metric as it is independent of the size of the project, its activity, or the number of developers, and remains relatively independent of the technology or functional area of the project. Our analysis provides evidence that the metric is related to the technical effervescence and popularity of project, and as such can be a good candidate to measure its healthy evolution. Other, similar metrics -like the ratio of developer messages to commits and the ratio of issue tracker messages to commits- are studied for several projects as well, in order to see if they have similar characteristics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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