Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolving Web has seen ever-growing use of structured data, thanks to the way it enhances information authoring, querying, visualization and sharing. To date, however, most structured data authoring and management tools have been oriented towards programmers and Web developers. End users have been left behind, unable to leverage structured data for information management and communication as well as professionals. In this paper, I will argue that many of the benefits of structured data management can be provided to end users as well. I will describe an approach and tools that allow end users to define their own schemas (without knowing what a schema is), manage data and author (not program) interactive Web visualizations of that data using the Web tools with which they are already familiar, such as plain Web pages, blogs, wikis and WYSIWYG document editors. I will describe our experience deploying these tools and some lessons relevant to their future evolution.
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 | 0.062 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".