Scikick: A sidekick for workflow clarity and reproducibility during extensive data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducibility is crucial for scientific progress, yet a clear research data analysis workflow is challenging to implement and maintain. As a result, a record of computational steps performed on the data to arrive at the key research findings is often missing. We developed Scikick, a tool that eases the configuration, execution, and presentation of scientific computational analyses. Scikick allows for workflow configurations with notebooks as the units of execution, defines a standard structure for the project, automatically tracks the defined interdependencies between the data analysis steps, and implements methods to compile all research results into a cohesive final report. Utilities provided by Scikick help turn the complicated management of transparent data analysis workflows into a standardized and feasible practice. Scikick version 0.2.1 code and documentation is available as supplementary material. The Scikick software is available on GitHub (https://github.com/matthewcarlucci/scikick) and is distributed with PyPi (https://pypi.org/project/scikick/) under a GPL-3 license.
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 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".