AI 中文总结
本文对117个开源研究型软件项目的多达7个机器可读元数据表面进行审计，发现83.9%的项目存在核心字段冲突，多数冲突源于表面描述的是软件论文而非软件本身，同时发布了审计相关资源。
AI 中文摘要
研究型软件项目会在多处同时描述自身：代码仓库中的引用文件、存档提交、DOI注册记录、包注册中心以及自述文件（README）文本。我们将软件视为底层对象，将这些机器可读的自描述内容视为其“表面”，即人和自动化系统读取项目关于软件声明的点。引用指南、索引服务和自动化智能体可能会读取这些表面的不同子集，因此它们之间的不一致会悄然割裂成果归属和来源。本文提出一个未被直接测量的简单问题：当项目自身的元数据表面相互比较时，它们的一致频率是多少？我们审计了117个开源研究型软件项目，其中包括87个高性能计算和量子计算项目语料库，以及从JOSS和pyOpenSci已接受包列表中抽取的30个已注册基线，每个项目涉及多达7个机器可读表面。我们采用四级判定标准对6个元数据字段进行评估，在338行分层样本上实现了98.5%的人工验证判定精度，结果发现，在暴露至少两个可比表面的62个项目中，有52个（83.9%）存在至少一个核心字段冲突，该结果对模糊匹配阈值不敏感。经人工裁定的跨表面冲突中，一半可追溯至单一机制：表面描述的是软件的论文而非软件本身。在自身URL包含首选引用的项目中，32个项目里有28个将引用指向与软件自身元数据不一致的记录。作者列表和标题的不一致程度最高，而注册表面的一致性最差。我们发布了审计流水线作为可导入库、语料库、已注册采样协议、所有原始快照以及完整验证日志。
英文摘要
Research software projects describe themselves in many places at once: citation files in the repository, archive deposits, DOI registry records, package registries, and README text. We treat the software as the underlying object and these machine-readable self-descriptions as its surfaces: the points where people and automated systems read what the project declares about the software. Citation guidance, indexing services, and automated agents may read a different subset of these surfaces, so disagreement between them can silently fragment credit and provenance. This paper asks a simple question that has not been measured directly: when a project's own metadata surfaces are compared with each other, how often do they agree? We audited 117 open-source research software projects, comprising an 87-project high-performance computing and quantum computing corpus and a 30-project registered baseline drawn from the JOSS and pyOpenSci accepted-package lists, across up to seven machine-readable surfaces per project. Using a four-level verdict rubric across six metadata fields, with 98.5\% hand-verified verdict precision on a 338-row stratified sample, we found that 52 of the 62 projects exposing at least two comparable surfaces (83.9\%) contain at least one core-field conflict, a result that is insensitive to the fuzzy-matching threshold. Half of hand-adjudicated cross-surface conflicts trace to a single mechanism: surfaces describing the software's paper rather than the software itself. Among projects whose CITATION.cff includes a preferred citation, 28 of 32 route citations to a record that disagrees with the software's own metadata. The author lists and titles disagree the most, and the registry surfaces are the least aligned. We release the audit pipeline as an importable library, the corpus, the registered sampling protocol, all raw snapshots, and the complete verification log.
Comments10 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables
