Computational Reproducibility: A Practical Framework for Data Curators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This paper presents concrete and actionable steps to guide researchers, data curators, and data managers in improving their understanding and practice of computational reproducibility. Objectives: Focusing on incremental progress rather than prescriptive rules, researchers and curators can build their knowledge and skills as the need arises. This paper presents a framework of incremental curation for reproducibility to support open science objectives. Methods: A computational reproducibility framework developed for the Canadian Data Curation Forum serves as the model for this approach. This framework combines learning about reproducibility with recommended steps to improving reproducibility. Conclusion: Computational reproducibility leads to more transparent and accurate research. The authors warn that fear of a crisis and focus on perfection should not prevent curation that may be ‘good enough.’
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.548 | 0.609 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".