OpenML: Insights from 10 years and more than a thousand papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OpenML is an open-source platform that democratizes machine-learning evaluation by enabling anyone to share datasets in uniform standards, define precise machine-learning tasks, and automatically share detailed workflows and model evaluations. More than just a platform, OpenML fosters a collaborative ecosystem where scientists create new tools, launch initiatives, and establish standards to advance machine learning. Over the past decade, OpenML has inspired over 1,500 publications across diverse fields, from scientists releasing new datasets and benchmarking new models to educators teaching reproducible science. Looking back, we detail and describe the platform's impact by looking at usage and citations. We share lessons from a decade of building, maintaining, and expanding OpenML, highlighting how rich metadata, collaborative benchmarking, and open interfaces have enhanced research and interoperability. Looking ahead, we cover ongoing efforts to expand OpenML's capabilities and integrate with other platforms, informing a broader vision for open-science infrastructure for machine learning.
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 | 0.021 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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".