MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209817047 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4637090

Round Table Brazil - PARSEC Project - Workflow management and reproducibility

2021· article· en· W3209817047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pedro Pizzigati Correa, Jeaneth Machicao, Shelley Stall, Romain David, Ali Ben Abbes, Laure Berti‐Équille, Marc Chaumont, Gérard Subsol

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowParsecTable (database)ReproducibilityComputer scienceDatabaseMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a forum for experience exchange, the ROUND TABLE BRAZIL - Workflow management and reproducibility, invites data scientist and data professionals to discuss experiences on the subject. <br> <br> It was published in 2016 the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ which became a standard for workflow management to create replicable and reproducible data experiments. <br> <br> How these ideas are implemented on daily data science experiments? <br> And what challenges are faced? <br> <br> March, 25th 2021 <br> 1:00pm to 3:00pm (Brazilian Time) <br> Escola Politécnica - Videoconference <strong>Round Table Website:</strong> http://wds.poli.usp.br/round-table-brazil-2021/ <strong>Recording:</strong> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGNaKOV6Ss This workshop is part of the PARSEC project generously funded by the Belmont Forum. <strong>Resources:</strong> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. <em>Reproducibility and Replicability in Science</em>. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. Victoria Stodden, Marcia McNutt, David H. Bailey, Ewa Deelman, Yolanda Gil, Brooks Hanson, Michael A. Heroux, John P.A. Ioannidis and Michela Taufer (December 8, 2016)<br> <em>Science </em><strong>354 </strong>(6317), 1240-1241. [doi: 10.1126/science.aah6168] Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IjJ, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3: 160018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 Pineau, J., Vincent-Lamarre, P., Sinha, K., Larivière, V., Beygelzimer, A., d’Alché-Buc, F., &amp; Larochelle, H. (2020). Improving reproducibility in machine learning research (a report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program). arXiv preprint arXiv :2003.12206. Harris, Jenine K.; Johnson, Kimberly J.; Carothers, Bobbi J.; Combs, Todd B.; Luke, Douglas A.; Wang, Xiaoyan (2018). "Use of reproducible research practices in public health: A survey of public health analysts". PLOS ONE. 13 (9): e0202447. Hartley, M., &amp; Olsson, T. S. (2020). dtoolAI : Reproducibility for Deep Learning. Patterns, 1(5), 100073. https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/welcome Reproducible Research in Computational Science, R. Peng, Science, Dec. 2011:1226-1227 www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/ReproducibilityChecklist.pdf

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.200 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207