A Model for Total Cost Determination in Open-Source Software Ownership: Case of Kenyan Universities’ Learning Management System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of open-source products is slowly increasing; the increase, however, is slower than expected, considering that most open-source products are freely available. Researchers and scholars have attributed the adoption levels to, among other things, a lack of know-how of the total cost of ownership of the open-source software. Thus, it is crucial for the cost of owning the software to be developed. While an ongoing endeavor to develop a model to determine the total cost of ownership of open-source software, the models have proved to be less accurate and do not capture essential elements. Moreover, there has been a rising call for organizations to adopt open-source software to lower the software costs incurred on proprietary software. If the cost of owning open-source software were known, it would be beneficial as several organizations and institutions could adopt it readily. The data was collected from Universities in Kiambu and Embu Counties. Linear regression analysis was done to help develop the model, and a mathematical model was developed. The proposed model was: total cost of open-source software ownership = direct + +indirect + hidden costs. To validate the model, it was subjected to expert validation. The model will be an outstanding contribution to information technology as it will make it possible to come up with the total cost of owning open-source software.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".