MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Challenges of Collaborative Data Processing

2010· book-chapter· en· W1703304431 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)LimitingData scienceWorld Wide WebVisualizationScale (ratio)Data visualizationData miningEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last 30 years have seen the creation of a variety of electronic collaboration tools for science and business. Some of the best-known collaboration tools support text editing (e.g., wikis). Wikipedia’s success shows that large-scale collaboration can produce highly valuable content. Meanwhile much structured data is being collected and made publicly available. We have never had access to more powerful databases and statistical packages. Is large-scale collaborative data analysis now possible? Using a quantitative analysis of Web 2.0 data visualization sites, the authors find evidence that at least moderate open collaboration occurs. The authors then explore some of the limiting factors of collaboration over data.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.181 · 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