MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782755661 · doi:10.1109/msmc.2017.2703590

Big Data and Collaboration Research: Creating Real Big Data

2018· article· en· W2782755661 on OpenAlexafffund
Haibin Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics Magazine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and cultural evolution
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNipissing UniversityUniversity of Miami
KeywordsBig dataData scienceResearch dataComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData miningData curation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data brings in the fundamental components of collaborative systems. At the same time, data collaboration creates real big data. It is valuable to apply big data to collaboration research and to apply collaborative technologies to data analysis to make big data. The conclusion is that collaboration needs data, and data require collaboration to be big 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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0230.056
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics MagazineSame topicLanguage and cultural evolutionFrench-language works237,207