A Metrics-Driven Approach for Quality Assessment of Linked Open Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the Web of Data paradigm is to crystallize knowledge through the interlinking of already existing but dispersed data. The usefulness of the developed knowledge depends strongly on the quality of the published data. Researchers have observed many deficiencies with regard to the quality of Linked Open Data. The first step towards improving the quality of data released as a part of the Linked Open Data Cloud is to develop tools for measuring the quality of such data. To this end, the main objective of this paper is to propose and validate a set of metrics for evaluating the inherent quality characteristics of a dataset before it is released to the Linked Open Data Cloud. These inherent characteristics are semantic accuracy, syntactic accuracy, uniqueness, completeness and consistency. We follow the Goal-Question-Metric approach to propose various metrics for each of these five quality characteristics. We provide both theoretical validation and empirical observation of the behavior of the proposed metrics in this paper. The proposed set of metrics establishes a starting point for a systematic inherent quality analysis of open datasets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it