Reproducibility as a service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies demonstrated that the reproducibility of previously published computational experiments is inadequate. Many of these published computational experiments never recorded or preserved their computational environment, including packages installed in the language, libraries installed on the host system, and file locations. Researchers have created reproducibility tools to help mitigate this problem, but these tools assume the experiment currently executes. Thus, these tools do not facilitate reproducibility of the large number of published experiments. This situation is not improving; researchers continue to publish without using reproducibility tools. We define a framework to distinguish between actions taken by a researcher to facilitate reproducibility in the presence of a computational environment and actions taken by a researcher to enable reproduction of an experiment when that environment has been lost to clarify the gap between what existing reproducibility tools are capable of and what is required to reproduce published experiments. The difference between these approaches lies in the availability of a computational environment. Researchers that provide access to the original computational environment perform proactive reproducibility, while those who do not enable only retroactive reproducibility. We present Reproducibility as a Service (RaaS), which is, to the best of our knowledge, the first reproducibility tool explicitly designed to facilitate retroactive reproducibility. We demonstrate how RaaS fixes many common errors found in R scripts on Harvard's Dataverse and preserves a recreated computational environment. Finally, we discuss how a retroactive reproducibility service such as RaaS is also helpful as an ‘artifact evaluation assistant’ in a journal's publication pipeline.
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 | 0.189 | 0.457 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.068 |
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".