Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster describes some of the challenges for managing web archive collections when they intersect with research data preservation.A web archive collection at the University of Alberta inadvertently harvested large data files from another institution which resulted in overloading the subscription budget for Archive-IT.A discussion followed about the appropriate policy approaches for web archive programs when they encounter research data on the web.The poster presents some of the evaluation criteria used to make decisions about including or excluding research data from web archives.Existing web archive tools are ill-prepared to deal with research data.Furthermore, responsibility for preserving research data and web documents is difficult to determine.Finally, the role of third-parties outside of the original institutions where research data is created is still unclear.Future activity in this area should address these challenges.
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 | 0.155 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
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".