MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529898042 · doi:10.1108/lhtn-09-2016-0040

Data, Open Science and libraries – The Data Deluge Column

2016· article· en· W2529898042 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

VenueLibrary Hi Tech News · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)MetadataComputer scienceWorld Wide WebBig dataLinked dataOpen dataData scienceGeospatial analysisWord (group theory)Information retrievalSemantic WebData miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose For those immersed in the environment of academic and research libraries, the word “data” seems to be everywhere. One hears about linked data, big data, open data, proprietary data, research data, metadata, geospatial data, data repositories, etc. Design/methodology/approach Some libraries even have data librarians and data services departments. Findings The author of this column wonders if she were to collect all of the library and information science literature published in the past three years and plug it into a word cloud app, which of the two, i.e. “data” or “books”, would be displayed in a larger font. Originality/value The author suspects that the chances are more than good that “data” would come out on top.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0250.430
Open science0.0820.176
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.151 · 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