A conceptual framework for managing very diverse data for complex, interdisciplinary science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much attention has been given to the challenges of handling massive data volumes in modern data-intensive science. This paper examines an equally daunting challenge – the diversity of interdisciplinary data, notably research data, and the need to interrelate these data to understand complex systemic problems such as environmental change and its impact. We use the experience of the International Polar Year 2007–8 (IPY) as a case study to examine data management approaches seeking to address issues around complex interdisciplinary science. We find that, while technology is a critical factor in addressing the interdisciplinary dimension of the data intensive science, the technologies developing for exa-scale data volumes differ from those that are needed for extremely distributed and heterogeneous data. Research data will continue to be highly heterogeneous and distributed and will require technologies to be much simpler and more flexible. More importantly, there is a need for both technical and cultural adaptation. We describe a vision of discoverable, open, linked, useful, and safe collections of data, organized and curated using the best principles and practices of information and library science. This vision provides a framework for our discussion and leads us to suggest several short- and long-term strategies to facilitate a socio-technical evolution in the overall science data ecosystem.
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 | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".