MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128309607 · doi:10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014007

SkData: data sets and algorithm evaluation protocols in Python

2015· article· en· W2128309607 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

VenueComputational Science & Discovery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersRowland Institute at HarvardNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPython (programming language)Computer scienceUploadParsingScripting languageBenchmark (surveying)AlgorithmSet (abstract data type)Data structureOn the flyData miningProgramming languageTheoretical computer scienceWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—Machine learning benchmark data sets come in all shapes and sizes, whereas classification algorithms assume sanitized input, such as (x, y) pairs with vector-valued input x and integer class label y. Researchers and practitioners know all too well how tedious it can be to get from the URL of a new data set to a NumPy ndarray suitable for e.g. pandas or sklearn. The SkData library handles that work for a growing number of benchmark data sets (small and large) so that one-off in-house scripts for downloading and parsing data sets can be replaced with library code that is reliable, community-tested, and documented. The SkData library also introduces an open-ended formalization of training and testing protocols that facilitates direct comparison with published research. This paper describes the usage and architecture of the SkData library. Index Terms—machine learning, cross validation, reproducibility

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.267 · 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