A posteriori metadata from automated provenance tracking: integration of AiiDA and TCOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to make results of computational scientific research findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable, it is necessary to decorate them with standardised metadata. However, there are a number of technical and practical challenges that make this process difficult to achieve in practice. Here the implementation of a protocol is presented to tag crystal structures with their computed properties, without the need of human intervention to curate the data. This protocol leverages the capabilities of AiiDA, an open-source platform to manage and automate scientific computational workflows, and the TCOD, an open-access database storing computed materials properties using a well-defined and exhaustive ontology. Based on these, the complete procedure to deposit computed data in the TCOD database is automated. All relevant metadata are extracted from the full provenance information that AiiDA tracks and stores automatically while managing the calculations. Such a protocol also enables reproducibility of scientific data in the field of computational materials science. As a proof of concept, the AiiDA-TCOD interface is used to deposit 170 theoretical structures together with their computed properties and their full provenance graphs, consisting in over 4600 AiiDA nodes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".