MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592343077 · doi:10.4033/iee.2017.10.1.e

Open Sesame: R for Data Science is Open Science

2017· article· en· W2592343077 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christopher J. Lortie

Bibliographic record

VenueIdeas in Ecology and Evolution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen scienceContext (archaeology)Natural scienceOpen dataBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebGeographyEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of a recent book on data science is framed within the context of open science. I propose that R is a natural bridge between data and open science and a powerful ally in promoting transparent, reproducible science.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.108

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIdeas in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207