MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523299508 · doi:10.15353/joci.v8i2.3046

Open Data - what the citizens really want

2012· article· en· W1523299508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wolfgang Both

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen dataTransparency (behavior)InfographicBlueprintOpen governmentVotingComputer scienceData scienceWork (physics)World Wide WebInternet privacyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer securityEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To design the first steps, the City of Berlin performed an Open Data Online Voting. More than 1.300 participants voted for three interesting categories out of a list of 20. A list from “Administration” via “Education” and “Health” to “Waste” was given. Five categories covered nearly 50 percent of the responders interest. The statistical results of the Survey were compared to a SAS survey about the general interest in Open Data, Transparency and Access from 2010. The Citizens were also asked, if they would read published Open Data and work with Open Data, to create Apps and Visualisation of combined Data Sets. This could be used as a blueprint for other cities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207