Find one named institutional user (the actual JOSS gate)

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#83 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
20/100
Tipo di issue
Funzionalità
Chiarezza
Specificata chiaramente
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Stack tecnologico
python, scikit-learn
Ambito
machine-learning

Direzione di ricerca

The issue says a “who's using this?” Discussion is drafted but unposted; start by locating that draft and reviewing the repository’s current Discussions. Post and pin it so users can signal use, then seek a named institutional user, researcher citation, or public post, talk, or notebook. Done means one of those forms of external evidence exists; this requires a person to respond and cannot be closed by a PR.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

help wanted

Status (2026-11-04)

Still open, still no named user. Two things below are out of date:

  • "There is no validation on real donor data anywhere in the repository" is no longer true. The real-data leakage replication on KDD Cup 1998 is archived (10.5281/zenodo.22050649), and the Results pages (docs/results/) report every model against a simple rule on KDD Cup 1998, cup98VAL, DonorsChoose and PSID.
  • The "who's using this?" Discussion is posted (#158) and linked from the README, with 0 replies. Signals today: 12 stars, 22 forks, 2 Discussions, 2 external issues.

As the 2026-08-21 comment says, this is not a JOSS blocker (#127). It stays open as the route to a citation that is not the maintainer's own.

Why this is the gating item

Everything else about this project is in reasonable shape: ~7,900 lines of source, ~8,000 of tests, 1,700 tests passing, 95%+ coverage, 43 documentation pages, four external contributors. None of that is what a JOSS editor screens on for a solo project.

The screen is research application and evidence of use. JOSS explicitly accommodates a single author, but only with "other evidence of community engagement, either in the repository or evidenced in the paper". Current signals: 6 stars, 5 forks, 0 watchers, 0 dependents, 0 Discussions, and no named user anywhere.

More concretely: there is no validation on real donor data anywhere in the repository. The one real dataset that ships (load_ciob_fundraising) has no donor rows, no gift amounts and no labels, and no estimator is ever fitted on it. Every number in the README, in docs/explanation/benchmarks.md and in paper.md is synthetic. A named institutional user is the cheapest thing that changes that, because it converts "plausible tool" into "tool someone runs".

What counts

Any one of these, in rough order of value:

  • A nonprofit, university advancement office or AMC foundation willing to be named as using it, even for exploratory analysis.
  • A researcher citing it in a paper or preprint.
  • A public post, talk or notebook by someone who is not the maintainer.

Concrete next step already drafted

There is a "who's using this?" Discussion drafted and still unposted, and 0 Discussions exist. That is currently the only instrument by which a user could signal existence. Posting and pinning it costs minutes.

This needs a person to say yes, so it cannot be closed by a PR.

Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
11
Fork
23
Merge medio
2g 19h
PR unite (30g)
31

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy

Tutte le issue di PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.