MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558488042 · doi:10.15353/joci.v12i3.3288

Some Key Challenges for Data Literacy

2016· article· en· W2558488042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark S. Frank, Johanna Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisKey (lock)LiteracyInformation literacyComputer scienceData scienceSociologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the motivation for holding the Data Literacy workshop at ACM WebSci 2015 and the key challenges for advancing the praxis and research of data literacy that emerged: defining data literacy; establishing its importance; identifying beneficial projects and building a community.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.052
Scholarly communication0.0240.046
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0090.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.127 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207