LabBook: Metadata-driven social collaborative data analysis
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
Open data analysis platforms are being adopted to support collaboration in science and business. Studies suggest that analytic work in an enterprise occurs in a complex ecosystem of people, data, and software working in a coordinated manner. These studies also point to friction between the elements of this ecosystem that reduces user productivity and quality of work. LabBook is an open, social, and collaborative data analysis platform designed explicitly to reduce this friction and accelerate discovery. Its goal is to help users leverage each other's knowledge and experience to find the data, tools and collaborators they need to integrate, visualize, and analyze data. The key insight is to collect and use more metadata about all elements of the analytic ecosystem by means of an architecture and user experience that reduce the cost of contributing such metadata. We demonstrate how metadata can be exploited to improve the collaborative user experience and facilitate collaborative data integration and recommendations. We describe a specific use case and discuss several design issues concerning the capture, representation, querying and use of metadata.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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