Toward a Compatible Reproducibility Taxonomy for Computational and Computing Sciences
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
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.
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 | 0.074 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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