MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784807254 · doi:10.12688/mniopenres.12772.1

From data sharing to data publishing

2018· article· en· W2784807254 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Baptiste Poline

Bibliographic record

VenueMNI Open Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPublishingData sharingContext (archaeology)Focus (optics)Data scienceData publishingSociologyResearch dataScientific publishingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceGeographyData curation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data sharing, i.e. depositing data in research community accessible repositories, is not becoming as rapidly widespread across the life science research community as hoped or expected. I consider the sociological and cultural context of research and lay out why the community should instead move to data publishing with a focus on neuroscience data, and outline practical steps that can be taken to realize this goal.

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.466
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.466
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.020
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0480.062
Open science0.0130.042
Research integrity0.0090.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.046

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.141 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMNI Open ResearchSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207