MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400620699 · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107522

GitHub marketplace for automation and innovation in software production

2024· article· en· W4400620699 on OpenAlexafffund
Sk Golam Saroar, Waseefa Ahmed, Elmira Onagh, Maleknaz Nayebi

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Software Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutomationProduction (economics)SoftwareSoftware engineeringComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineeringBusinessOperating systemEconomicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: GitHub, renowned for facilitating collaborative code version control and software production in software teams, expanded its services in 2017 by introducing GitHub Marketplace. This online platform hosts automation tools to assist developers with the production of their GitHub-hosted projects, and it has become a valuable source of information on the tools used in the Open Source Software (OSS) community. Objective: In this exploratory study , we introduce GitHub Marketplace as a software marketplace by exploring the Characteristics, Features, and Policies of the platform comprehensively, identifying common themes in production automation. Further, we explore popular tools among practitioners and researchers and highlight disparities in the approach to these tools between industry and academia. Method: We adopted the conceptual framework of software app stores from previous studies and used that to examine 8,318 automated production tools (440 Apps and 7,878 Actions) across 32 categories on GitHub Marketplace. We explored and described the policies of this marketplace as a unique platform where developers share production tools for the use of other developers. Furthermore, we conducted a systematic mapping of 515 research papers published from 2000 to 2021 and compared open-source academic production tools with those available in the marketplace. Results: We found that although some of the automation topics in literature are widely used in practice, they have yet to align with the state-of-practice for automated production. We discovered that practitioners often use automation tools for tasks like “Continuous Integration” and “Utilities”, while researchers tend to focus more on “Code Quality” and “Testing”. Conclusion: Our study illuminates the landscape of open-source tools for automation production. We also explored the disparities between industry trends and researchers’ priorities. Recognizing these distinctions can empower researchers to build on existing work and guide practitioners in selecting tools that meet their specific needs. Bridging this gap between industry and academia helps with further innovation in the field and ensures that research remains pertinent to the evolving challenges in software production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation and Software TechnologySame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207