Ten Simple Rules to build a Model Life Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just like data, models have their own life cycle. By recognizing how one’s model fits within the life cycle of the data (or at least, ensuring that the model life cycle is understood), we can identify opportunities to foster new collaborations, encourage better practices in data analysis, and ultimately accelerate research. In this manuscript, we introduce the Model Life Cycle and develop a series of ten simple rules aimed at facilitating collaborations between data collectors, curators, users, and modellers, as well as maximizing the potential for re-use of models. We explore the idea of a Model Life Cycle, starting from the assumption that it will address machine learning (ML) models, i.e. models that can be trained and deployed iteratively, and whose focus is on prediction of quantifiable phenomena. Specifically, we are interested in clarifying the use of models in large, interdisciplinary groups, where the actual modelling exercise may involve only a subset of the group (e.g., with others collecting and standardizing data).
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 | 0.020 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".