MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921931467 · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2019.03.001

Measuring and analyzing code authorship in 1 + 118 open source projects

2019· article· en· W2921931467 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, André Hora, Marco Túlio Valente

Bibliographic record

VenueScience of Computer Programming · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsComputer scienceLinux kernelSource codeRelation (database)Key (lock)World Wide WebCode (set theory)Open sourceReplicateConstant (computer programming)Metric (unit)Open source softwareOperating systemSoftwareInformation retrievalData scienceProgramming languageDatabaseStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueScience of Computer ProgrammingSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207