MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789963275 · doi:10.5334/jors.184

Fourth Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4)

2018· article· en· W2789963275 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 Open Research Software · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilGordon and Betty Moore FoundationAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceBest practicePosition paperSoftwareSet (abstract data type)Engineering ethicsCode (set theory)Position (finance)Engineering managementWorld Wide WebManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarizes motivations, organization, and activities of the Fourth Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4). The WSSSPE series promotes sustainable research software by positively impacting principles and best practices, careers, learning, and credit. This article discusses the code of conduct; the mission and vision statements that were drafted at the workshop and finalized shortly after it; the keynote and idea papers, position papers, experience papers, demos, and lightning talks presented during the workshop; and a panel discussion on best practices. The main part of the article discusses the set of working groups that formed during the meeting, along with contact information for readers who may want to join a group. Finally, it discusses a survey of the workshop attendees.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0060.004
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.228 · 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