Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to ensure the long-term usefulness of scientific data, it is essential that they are recorded using a commonly readable file format, which should ideally be self-describing. Even more importantly the files should include appropriate items of metadata, i.e. information about the data. This document will focus on the use of the Climate and Forecast (CF) metadata conventions, which have been designed for use together with the netCDF file format. They are designed to capture details which are often common-knowledge within the research groups who operate instruments but which might not be documented elsewhere. Consequently they are equally as important for current data usage, particularly where files are exchanged between different research groups, as they are for ensuring the long-term usefulness. This document was originally written to accompany a lecture given by the author at the Radar School, held 12th-16th May 2009, which preceded the 12th International Workshop on Technical and Scientific Aspects of MST Radar (MST12), held 17th-23rd May 2009 in London, Ontario (Canada).
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.093 |
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".