Excuse me, do you have a moment to talk about version control?
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
Data analysis, statistical research, and teaching statistics have at least one thing in common: these activities all produce many files! There are data files, source code, figures, tables, prepared reports, and much more. Most of these files evolve over the course of a project and often need to be shared with others, for reading or edits, as a project unfolds. Without explicit and structured management, project organization can easily descend into chaos, taking time away from the primary work and reducing the quality of the final product. This unhappy result can be avoided by repurposing tools and workflows from the software development world, namely, distributed version control. This article describes the use of the version control system Git and and the hosting site GitHub for statistical and data scientific workflows. Special attention is given to projects that use the statistical language R and, optionally, R Markdown documents. Supplementary materials include an annotated set of links to step-by-step tutorials, real world examples, and other useful learning resources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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