Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the concept of Linked Open Data (LOD), has gained popularity and acceptance across various communities and domains. Science politics and organizations claim that the potential of semantic technologies and data exposed in this manner may support and enhance research processes and infrastructures providing research information and services. In this thesis, we investigate whether these expectations can be met in the domain of the social sciences. In particular, we analyse and develop methods for matching social scientific data that is published as Linked Data, which we introduce as Linked Open Social Science Data. Based on expert interviews and a prototype application, we investigate the current consumption of LOD in the social sciences and its requirements. Following these insights, we first focus on the complete publication of Linked Open Social Science Data by extending and developing domain-specific ontologies for representing research communities, research data and thesauri. In the second part, methods for matching Linked Open Social Science Data are developed that address particular patterns and characteristics of the data typically used in social research. The results of this work contribute towards enabling a meaningful application of Linked Data in a scientific domain.
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 | 0.028 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".