Find one named institutional user (the actual JOSS gate)

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#83 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
20/100
issue の種類
機能追加
明瞭さ
明確に書かれている
活発さ
静か
技術スタック
python, scikit-learn
領域
machine-learning

調査の方向性

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.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

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 Two things below are out of date: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.

主要言語
Python
スター
11
フォーク
23
平均マージ
1日 11時間
マージ済み PR（30日）
30

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy のほかの issue

PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。