MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106499078 · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-14160

Studying the Health of Bitcoin Ecosystem in GitHub

2020· dissertation· en· W3106499078 on OpenAlexaff
Khadija Osman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationDecision treeNaive Bayes classifierComputer scienceData scienceSoftwareSupport vector machineData miningTree (set theory)Machine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bitcoin is a virtual and decentralized cryptocurrency that operates in a peer-to-peer network providing a private payment mechanism.It is a multi-billion dollar cryptocurrency, and hundreds of other cryptocurrencies are created based on it.Bitcoin is based on Open-Source (OSS) software development, and OSS is a convenient way to qualitatively measure software development and growth.This thesis presents the first comprehensive study of the Bitcoin ecosystem in GitHub organized around 481 most popular and actively developed Bitcoin related projects over eight years (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018).Our work includes manual and data-driven categorization of the projects, defining software health metrics, classification of projects into three different classes of health, and evaluation of trends in the health of the ecosystem as a whole.Four classification algorithms such as decision tree, Support Vector Machines, K-Nearest Neighbor and Naïve Bayes are leveraged to predict the health of a project and compare the classifiers' performance.The dataset used in this research is a combination of GHTorrent and a data collected during this study.The main findings suggest that the Bitcoin ecosystem in GitHub is represented by nine categories as result of manual categorization and 4 clusters based on the data-driven approach.Moreover, majority of the projects are assessed as "Low Risk".Our classification results show that decision trees outperform other classifiers in predicting the health of a software projects with an accuracy of 98%.iii I, Khadija Osman, would like to express my sincere gratitude to my amazing supervisor, Professor Olga Baysal, for her continuous guidance, advice, and friendly discussions throughout my thesis.Our joint vision for this project, and her continuous efforts provided me valuable feedback and support, which made this work successful.Besides my supervisor, I wish to express my deepest appreciation to all the thesis committee members for their valuable time, insightful comments and

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207