Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The NIST Research Data Framework (RDaF) is a multifaceted and customizable tool that aims to help shape the future of open data access and research data management (RDM). The RDaF will allow organizations and individual researchers to develop their own RDM strategy. Though NIST is leading the RDaF, most of the content in the current version 2.0, which supersedes preliminary V1.0 and interim V1.5, was obtained via engagement with national and international leaders in the research data community. NIST held a series of three plenary and 15 stakeholder workshops from October 2021 to September 2023. Workshop attendees represented many stakeholder sectors: US government agencies, national laboratories, academia, industry, non-profit organizations, publishers, professional societies, trade organizations, and funders (public and private), including international organizations. The audience for the RDaF is the entire research data community in all disciplines—the biological, chemical, medical, social, and physical sciences and the humanities. The RDaF is applicable from the organization to the project level and encompasses a wide array of job roles involving RDM, from executives and Chief Data Officers to publishers, funders, and researchers. The RDaF is a map of the research data space that uses a lifecycle approach with six stages to organize key information concerning RDM and research data dissemination. Through a community-driven and in-depth process, NIST identified and defined specific, high-priority topics and subtopics for each lifecycle stage. The topics and subtopics are programmatic and operational activities, concepts, and other important factors relevant to RDM which form the foundation of the framework. This foundation enables organizations and individual researchers to use the RDaF for self-assessment of their RDM status. Each subtopic has several informative references—resources such as guidelines, standards, and policies—to help a user understand or implement that subtopic. As such, the RDaF may be considered a “best practices” document. Fourteen overarching themes—topic areas identified as pervasive throughout the framework—illustrate the connections among the six lifecycle stages. Finally, the RDaF includes eight sample profiles for common job functions or roles. Each profile contains topics and subtopics an individual in the given role needs to consider in fulfilling their RDM responsibilities. Individual researchers and organizations involved in the research data lifecycle will be able to tailor these sample profiles or generate entirely new profiles for their specific job function. The methodologies used to generate the content of this publication, RDaF V2.0, are described in detail. An interactive web application has been developed and released that provides an interface for all the components of the RDaF mentioned above and replicates this document. The web application is easy and intuitive to navigate and provides new functionality enabled by the interactive environment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,039 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,031 |
| Science ouverte | 0,044 | 0,073 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle