The open-closed principle of modern machine learning frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in computing technologies and the availability of huge volumes of data have sparked a new machine learning (ML) revolution, where almost every day a new headline touts the demise of human experts by ML models on some task. Open source software development is rumoured to play a significant role in this revolution, with both academics and large corporations such as Google and Microsoft releasing their ML frameworks under an open source license. This paper takes a step back to examine and understand the role of open source development in modern ML, by examining the growth of the open source ML ecosystem on GitHub, its actors, and the adoption of frameworks over time. By mining LinkedIn and Google Scholar profiles, we also examine driving factors behind this growth (paid vs. voluntary contributors), as well as the major players who promote its democratization (companies vs. communities), and the composition of ML development teams (engineers vs. scientists). According to the technology adoption lifecycle, we find that ML is in between the stages of early adoption and early majority. Furthermore, companies are the main drivers behind open source ML, while the majority of development teams are hybrid teams comprising both engineers and professional scientists. The latter correspond to scientists employed by a company, and by far represent the most active profiles in the development of ML applications, which reflects the importance of a scientific background for the development of ML frameworks to complement coding skills. The large influence of cloud computing companies on the development of open source ML frameworks raises the risk of vendor lock-in. These frameworks, while open source, could be optimized for specific commercial cloud offerings.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".