MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283032468 · doi:10.1145/3534520

Facilitating Asynchronous Collaboration in Scientific Workflow Composition Using Provenance

2022· article· en· W4283032468 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

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceSoftware versioningAsynchronous communicationWorkflow management systemSoftware engineeringVariety (cybernetics)Data scienceCollaborative softwareSoftwareWorkflow technologyWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in scientific domains are led to an increase in the complexity of the experiments. To address this growing complexity, scientists from different domains require to work collaboratively. Scientific Workflow Management Systems (SWfMSs) are popular tools for data-intensive experiments. To the best of our knowledge, very few of the existing SWfMSs support collaboration, and it is not efficient in many cases. Researchers share a single version of the workflow in existing collaborative data analysis systems, which increases the chance of interference as the number of collaborators grows. Moreover, for effective collaboration, contributors require a clear view of the project's status, the information that existing SWfMSs do not provide. Another significant problem is most scientists are not capable of adding collaborative tools to existing SWfMSs, and they need software engineers to take on this responsibility. Even for software engineers such tasks could be challenging and time consuming. In this paper, we attempted to address this crucial issue in scientific workflow composition and doing so in a collaborative setting. Hence, we propose a tool to facilitate collaborative workflow composition. This tool provides branching and versioning, which are standard version control system features to allow multiple researchers to contribute to the project asynchronously. We also suggest some visualizations and a variety of reports to increase group awareness and help the scientists to realize the project's status and issues. As a proof of concept, we developed an API to capture the provenance data and provide collaborative tools. This API is developed as an example for software engineers to help them understand how to integrate collaborative tools into any SWfMS. We collect provenance information during workflow composition and then employ it to track workflow versions using the proposed collaborative tool. Prior to implementing the visualizations, we surveyed to discover how much the proposed visualizations could contribute to group awareness. Moreover, in the survey we investigated to what extent the proposed version control system could help address shortcomings in collaborative experiments. The survey participants provided us with valuable feedback. In future, we will use the survey responses to enhance the proposed version control system and visualizations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.268 · 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