MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996887476 · doi:10.1038/520436c

Act to staunch loss of research data

2015· letter· en· W1996887476 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Gonzalez, Pedro R. Peres‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Never before have scientists had the ability to generate and collect so much data — recent estimates suggest that the global scientific output is doubling roughly every decade (see L. Bornmann and R. Mutz, preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4578v3 ; 2014, and go.nature.com/nzejwh ). It is alarming, therefore, that the odds of data being lost are estimated to increase by 17% in every year after publication (T. H. Vines et al . Curr. Biol. 24 , 94–97; 2014). And this does not include the 80% or so of research data that are inaccessible or unpublished (B. P. Heidorn Libr. Trends 57 , 280–299; 2008).

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.019
Scholarly communication0.0140.020
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0920.108
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.026

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207