shinymgr: A Framework for Building, Managing, and Stitching Shiny Modules into Reproducible Workflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The R package shinymgr provides a unifying framework that allows Shiny developers to create, manage, and deploy a master Shiny application comprised of one or more "apps", where an "app" is a tab-based workflow that guides end-users through a step-by-step analysis. Each tab in a given "app" consists of one or more Shiny modules. The shinymgr app builder allows developers to "stitch" Shiny modules together so that outputs from one module serve as inputs to the next, creating an analysis pipeline that is easy to implement and maintain. Apps developed using shinymgr can be incorporated into R packages or deployed on a server, where they are accessible to end-users. Users of shinymgr apps can save analyses as an RDS file that fully reproduces the analytic steps and can be ingested into an RMarkdown or Quarto report for rapid reporting. In short, developers use the shinymgr framework to write Shiny modules and seamlessly combine them into Shiny apps, and end-users of these apps can execute reproducible analyses that can be incorporated into reports for rapid dissemination. A comprehensive overview of the package is provided by 12 learnr tutorials.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.064 |
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".