Toward a Compatible Reproducibility Taxonomy for Computational and Computing Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducibility is an essential ingredient of the scientific enterprise. The ability to reproduce results builds trust that we can rely on the results as foundations for future scientific exploration. Presently, the fields of computational and computing sciences provide two opposing definitions of reproducible and replicable. In computational sciences, reproducible research means authors provide all necessary data and computer codes to run analyses again, so others can re-obtain the results (J. Claerbout et al., 1992). The concept was adopted and extended by several communities, where it was distinguished from replication: collecting new data to address the same question, and arriving at consistent findings (Peng et al. 2006). The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), representing computer science and industry professionals, recently established a reproducibility initiative, adopting essentially opposite definitions. The purpose of this report is to raise awareness of the opposite definitions and propose a path to a compatible taxonomy.
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 | 0.168 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.077 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".