The Role of Fairness in Retaining Open Source Software Contributors: An Organizational Justice Framework for Platform Engagement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By facilitating open source software (OSS) development online software platforms are constantly contributing to the tremendous growth of open source software. The main purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between volunteer OSS developers and OSS platforms. To achieve the goal, this study proposes a theory that perception of justice about the OSS platform defines the ongoing relationship between OSS platform and OSS developers. Drawing on social exchange theory, the study examines how perceptions of justice in rewarding contributors impact information systems and technology professionals’ engagement with an OSS platform and their intention to contribute to future projects hosted by the OSS platform. The findings reveal that various dimensions of justice significantly affect both engagement and sustained participation intentions among information systems and technology professionals. The research advances open source literature by exploring the relationship between information systems and technology professionals contributing to open source projects and platform organizations, offering valuable insights for platforms seeking to foster long-term, voluntary engagement and enhance their standing within the open-source 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it