[yorwba]

Gensim is #119 in the list according to your link, far behind projects with many more active contributors, so hardly a resounding success of your scoring method.

In terms of metrics, you could start by weighing projects with few contributors as more critical, not less. Specifically, gensim does appear to have had quite a few contributors, but the bulk of the code was written by the single maintainer https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/gensim/graphs/contribut... So maybe you should add a metric "percentage of code in the past year authored by the top contributor".

If you want to go about it in a more data-driven fashion, you could go through the top projects for each language, check whether they actually need your support (e.g. find out what the development goals are, ask whether the current resources are sufficient and what they'd do with the additional resources you can provide) to get a ground-truth labeling of critical projects, then readjust your weights to match the ground truth.