Find one named institutional user (the actual JOSS gate)

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#83 1 bình luận 0 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
5/5
Thời gian dự kiến
Hơn một tuần
Mức phù hợp với người mới
20/100
Loại issue
Tính năng
Độ rõ ràng
Đặc tả rõ ràng
Mức độ hoạt động
Ít trao đổi
Công nghệ
python, scikit-learn
Lĩnh vực
machine-learning

Hướng nghiên cứu

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.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

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 Two things below are out of date: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.

Ngôn ngữ chính
Python
Star
11
Fork
23
Merge trung bình
2 ngày 19 giờ
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
31

Chuẩn bị môi trường

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy

Tất cả issue của PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về Python

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.