Data Mining Research with In-copyright and Use-limited Text Datasets: Preliminary Findings from a Systematic Literature Review and Stakeholder Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text data mining and analysis has emerged as a viable research method for scholars, following the growth of mass digitization, digital publishing, and scholarly interest in data re-use. Yet the texts that comprise datasets for analysis are frequently protected by copyright or other intellectual property rights that limit their access and use. This article discusses the role of libraries at the intersection of data mining and intellectual property, asserting that academic libraries are vital partners in enabling scholars to effectively incorporate text data mining into their research. We report on activities leading up to an IMLS-funded National Forum of stakeholders and discuss preliminary findings from a systematic literature review, as well as initial results of interviews with forum stakeholders. Emerging themes suggest the need for a multi-pronged distributed approach that includes a public campaign for building awareness and advocacy, development of best practice guides for library support services and training, and international efforts toward data standardization and copyright harmonization.
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 | 0.169 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".