Applying the FAIR Principles to computational workflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent trends within computational and data sciences show an increasing recognition and adoption of computational workflows as tools for productivity and reproducibility that also democratize access to platforms and processing know-how. As digital objects to be shared, discovered, and reused, computational workflows benefit from the FAIR principles, which stand for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. The Workflows Community Initiative’s FAIR Workflows Working Group (WCI-FW), a global and open community of researchers and developers working with computational workflows across disciplines and domains, has systematically addressed the application of both FAIR data and software principles to computational workflows. We present recommendations with commentary that reflects our discussions and justifies our choices and adaptations. These are offered to workflow users and authors, workflow management system developers, and providers of workflow services as guidelines for adoption and fodder for discussion. The FAIR recommendations for workflows that we propose in this paper will maximize their value as research assets and facilitate their adoption by the wider community.
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 | 0.141 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".