MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035490936 · doi:10.1629/2431

The need and drive for open data in biomedical publishing

2011· article· en· W2035490936 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueSerials The Journal for the Serials Community · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationCancer Research UKWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilWellcome
KeywordsOpen dataOpen scienceData sharingScrutinyScholarly communicationPublishingReuseData publishingComputer scienceOpen researchData scienceService (business)World Wide WebPolitical scienceBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of open data goes beyond making data freely available. Data must also be free to reuse and build upon without legal or technical impediments. Funder and journal policies for data sharing and the growing open science movement are helping open data to spread across biomedical sub-disciplines. Editors should embrace open data to ensure that their decisions can stand up to close scrutiny; journals need open data to help them fulfil their stated goals, and publishers should utilize open data and data publication to serve the growing sector of the scientific community requiring it as a service, and to continue developing novel forms of scholarly communication in an increasingly data-intensive scholarly communication environment.

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)0.239
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2390.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.016
Science and technology studies0.0110.041
Scholarly communication0.0570.088
Open science0.0050.031
Research integrity0.0150.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.002 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSerials The Journal for the Serials CommunitySame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207