MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596614463 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-670-5-405

Open and Big Data Partnerships for Public Good: Interactive Live Polling of Influential Factors

2016· book-chapter· en· W2596614463 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOS Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådetYork University
KeywordsPollingBig dataInternet privacyBusinessData scienceComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceData miningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is much potential for open and big data to be used for addressing societal challenges of today. This drives a new kind of partnership called “data collaborative” emphasizing the value of data for public good. Data collaboratives stand for cross-sector partnerships, whereby organizations in the private or public sector disclose their data, as an act of good will, in order to contribute to a societal cause (such as e.g. healthcare, humanitarian, or other policy issues). In this workshop we focus on this emerging topic which so far has deserved little attention in research. In our previous research an initial framework of influential factors for data collaboratives was introduced. The workshop objective is to validate and refine this initial framework by inviting participants to take part in an interactive live polling exercise and assess a number of propositions about influential factors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.028 · 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