MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Canadian Federated Research Data Repository Service

2017· article· en· W2743608128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wilson Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Information Science and Standards · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineInteroperabilityData management planGeneral partnershipData managementService (business)Computer scienceInformation repositoryData as a serviceData curationMetadataWorld Wide WebData scienceKnowledge managementBusinessDatabaseComputer data storage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good data management requires support for researchers at all stages of the data lifecycle, from policy and planning development to infrastructure that ensures data is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). While several excellent institutional, domain-specific, and general repositories currently exist both within Canada and abroad, Canada lacks nationally coordinated solutions for managing research data, and the question of where to deposit data for discovery, reuse, and preservation remains pervasive. Developed through a partnership between the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), the Portage Network, and Compute Canada, the Federated Research Data Repository (FRDR) seeks to address a longstanding gap in Canada’s research infrastructure by providing a single platform from which research data can be ingested, curated, preserved, discovered, cited, and shared. The platform’s federated search tool will provide a focal point to discover and access Canadian research data, while the range of services provided by FRDR will help researchers store and manage their data, preserve their research for future use, and comply with institutional and funding agency data management requirements. In this presentation, participants will learn about the development of the new system, current and planned functionality, the timeline for service launch, the proposed distributed service model to support institutions both locally and nationally, and a brief overview of research projects we will be supporting as the platform moves toward launch. Researchers will gain an understanding of how they can use FRDR to make their research data discoverable and accessible, as well as comply with increasing funder expectations for the management of research data.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0160.004
Scholarly communication0.0200.016
Open science0.0080.014
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.509
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.088 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Information Science and StandardsSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207