New possibilities for metadata creation in an institutional repository context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop automated methods for creating metadata for documents in an institutional repository. Design/methodology/approach Two methods are examined for automatically building metadata in an institutional repository context. Text mining techniques are employed to discover relationships among documents with similar content, from which are inferred possible values for missing or incomplete metadata elements. Machine learning techniques are used to identify and extract specific metadata element values from document content. Findings Text mining techniques can be used to cluster documents with similar content. This allows values for metadata elements, like keyword, to be projected from documents with established metadata to related documents. Machine learning techniques are found to be reasonably accurate for extracting from documents values for metadata elements, such as, title, author, and abstract. Results show sufficient promise to support the next phase of the project: the development of assistive tools for use by metadata specialists to create or edit document metadata. Originality/value This paper focuses on the use of automated metadata extraction techniques to assist metadata creation, lessening the time and effort required to add documents to institutional repositories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".