Large-scale analysis of the co-commit patterns of the active developers in github's top repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GitHub, the largest code hosting site (with 25 million public active repositories and contributions from 6 million active users), provides an unprecedented opportunity to observe the collaboration patterns of software developers. Understanding the patterns behind the social coding phenomena is an active research area where the insights gained can guide the design of better collaboration tools, and can also help to identify and select developer talent. In this paper, we present a large-scale analysis of the co-commit patterns in GitHub. We analyze 10 million commits made by 200 thousand developers to 16 thousand repositories, using 17 of the most popular programming languages over a period of 3 years. Although a large volume of data is included in our study, we pay close attention to the participation criteria for repositories and developers. We select repositories by reputation (based on star ranking), and we introduce the notion of active developer in GitHub (observing that a limited subset of developers is responsible for the vast majority of the commits). Using co-authorship networks, we analyze the co-commit patterns of the active developer network for each programming language. We observe that the active developer networks are less connected and more centralized than the general GitHub developer networks, and that the patterns vary significantly among languages. We compare our results to other collaborative environments (Wikipedia and scientific research networks), and we also describe the evolution of the co-commit patterns over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".