MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332037986 · doi:10.5860/crln.73.1.8686

Supporting tomorrow’s research: Assessing faculty data curation needs at Georgia Tech

2012· article· en· W2332037986 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

VenueCollege & Research Libraries News · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData curationGeorgia techResearch dataData scienceLibrary scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T oday's researchers face multiple chal- lenges regarding the management and preservation of their data. Consider that researchers are producing and collecting vast amounts of data at an ever-increasing rate. They contend with increased pressure from sponsors, institutions, and the broader public to provide evidence for research outcomes. And funding agency mandates are becoming increasingly demanding, an example being the National Science Foundation's (NSF) requirement that proposals submitted after January 18, 2011, include a data management plan. Clearly, the management and preservation of research data is of growing importance to institutions, and provides a juncture where librarians can work with researchers and other campus professionals to develop research data curation services.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0190.269
Open science0.0150.042
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.563
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.037 · 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