MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1681149245 · doi:10.15353/joci.v8i2.3049

Some Observations on the Practice of “Open Data” As Opposed to Its Promise

2012· article· en· W1681149245 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roland J. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceOpen dataInstitutionPublic institutionData sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note is a contribution to the continuing debates and analyses about what can and should be done to make public data “open.” In this note, I share some observations about current practices surrounding public data. In general, these observations lead to the insight that “absolutely open” public data is and will continue to be rare. Instead, various types of data are apt to be more or less open, and the reasons for the degree of openness may vary from one situation to another, that is type of data, by country, by type of institution, etc.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.076
Scholarly communication0.0170.037
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0090.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207