MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783291455 · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258218

Identifying and mitigating risks to the quality of open data in the post-truth era

2017· article· en· W2783291455 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen dataBig dataData scienceTransparency (behavior)Data qualityComputer scienceAnalyticsQuality (philosophy)Ground truthOpen governmentData analysisComputer securityData miningWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big Data analysis often relies on open data, integrating it with large private data sets, using it as ground truth information, or providing it as part of the input to large simulations. Data can be released openly by governments to achieve various objectives: transparency, informing citizen engagement, or supporting private enterprise, to name a few. To the latter objective, Big Data analytics algorithms rely on high-quality, timely access to various data sources, including open data. Examples include retail analytics drawing on open demographic data and weather forecast systems drawing on open weather and climate data. In this paper, we describe the rise of post-truth in society, and the risks this poses to the quality, integrity, and authenticity of open data. We also discuss approaches to identifying, assessing, and mitigating these risks, and suggest future steps to manage this data quality concern.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0120.012
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 head0.781
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207