Building Domain-Specific Machine Learning Workflows: A Conceptual Framework for the State of the Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domain experts are increasingly employing machine learning to solve their domain-specific problems. This article presents to software engineering researchers the six key challenges that a domain expert faces in addressing their problem with a computational workflow, and the underlying executable implementation. These challenges arise out of our conceptual framework which presents the “route” of transformations that a domain expert may choose to take while developing their solution. To ground our conceptual framework in the state of the practice, this article discusses a selection of available textual and graphical workflow systems and their support for the transformations described in our framework. Example studies from the literature in various domains are also examined to highlight the tools used by the domain experts as well as a classification of the domain specificity and machine learning usage of their problem, workflow, and implementation. The state of the practice informs our discussion of the six key challenges, where we identify which challenges and transformations are not sufficiently addressed by available tools. We also suggest possible research directions for software engineering researchers to increase the automation of these tools and disseminate best-practice techniques between software engineering and various scientific domains.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".