MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404833249 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3781385

Bringing them in: what 5 years of data can tell us about growing a data service

2012· article· en· W2404833249 on OpenAlexaff
Kristi Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService (business)Data scienceBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Windsor Academic Data Centre, a walk-in service for help with data analysis and statistical software, opened in 2006. Since opening we have kept data on every user to walk in our doors, recording their status, department or major, project type and how they found out about the service. This presentation will delve into the data with graphs, charts and other analysis to see what it can tell us about how to keep bringing them in!

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.231
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.231
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0210.038
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.003 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207