MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Open Source Movement: A Revolution in Software Development

2008· article· en· W2620725141 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

VenueJournal of Computer Information Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRACE (psycholinguistics)IdeologyOpen source softwareOpen sourceMovement (music)Open-source software developmentIntellectual propertyQuality (philosophy)Software developmentSoftwarePerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Computer scienceInternet privacyPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The open source movement is based on a radical retake on copyright law to create high quality software whose use and development are guaranteed to the public. In this article we trace the history of the movement, highlighting its interaction with intellectual property law. The movement has spawned open source software (OSS) communities where developers and users meet to create software that meets their needs. We discuss the demographic profile of OSS participants, their ideology, their motivations, and the process of OSS development. Then we examine the impacts of OSS on society as a whole from the perspective of the information society, discussing the effects on OSS developers, users of OSS, and society at large, particularly in developing countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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