MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124603218

Business Models for Free and Open Source Software: Insights from a Delphi Study

2015· article· en· W3124603218 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiBusiness modelComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware developmentKnowledge managementProcess managementData scienceBusinessMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a Delphi study that consulted leading FOSS experts to identify the most important business models for FOSS. We employed the Delphi method to consult leading experts in FOSS, asking them to identify existing business models; describe potentially feasible models that are not currently implemented; identify specific categories of stakeholders involved; and identify the various goals and priorities of these stakeholders. The experts, who included software developers, corporate and individual users of software and members of leading software development industry organizations, highlighted 10 particularly important business models for FOSS which they analyzed and commentated in detail. Among other issues, the experts discussed the sustainability of various models and the extent to which they upheld users’ software freedoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.226 · 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