MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118211215

The use of the Dublin Core in web annotation programs

2002· article· en· W2118211215 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebCore (optical fiber)Task (project management)ServerProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)SituatedScheme (mathematics)Web applicationInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceEngineeringProgramming languageTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the implications of annotation programs, such as Annotea, for the development of the Dublin Core. Annotation programs enable multiple users, situated far apart, to comment on a Web-mounted document, even when they lack write access, through the use of annotation servers. Early indications suggest that the Dublin Core can significantly enhance the collaborative authoring process, especially if the full set of elements is used in a project that involves large numbers of users. However, the task of adapting DC elements and qualifiers for use in annotation threatens to increase the complexity of the scheme, and takes the Dublin Core far from its connections to traditional library cataloguing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.349
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.007 · 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