Organization of Free and Open Source Software Projects: In-between the Community and Traditional Governance
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
This work aimed to understand what community-based free software projects are and what governance characteristics (structure and control) differentiate them from traditional organizations, thus spurring further reflections on this business model. A literature review was conducted to outline the main perceptions on this topic, as well as qualitative exploratory research, involving documentary analysis and interviews with four Brazilian participants who work in the management of projects.. The exploratory research was a preliminary contact with the investigated field to make the arguments presented more reliable. Among the reflections, it is observed that even though it is possible to distinguish community-based free software projects from traditional organizations, a crucial factor not always considered are the transformations resulting from the development of these projects. It is necessary that the studies consider the context of functioning, as well as the changes and interorganizational relationships established by the projects over time. Considering these issues, it is believed that approximations between projects and traditional organizations can occur, even if community characteristics are maintained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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