MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789253917 · doi:10.1080/19386389.2018.1443698

Open Metadata for Research Data Discovery in Canada

2017· article· en· W2789253917 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Library Metadata · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaYork UniversityOntario Council of University LibrariesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataData discoveryComputer scienceData scienceReuseData management planData curationResearch dataWorld Wide WebOpen dataBest practiceOpen researchData elementLinked dataMetadata repositoryData managementDatabaseSemantic WebEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential for reusing research data is inextricably tied to how discoverable these data are to other researchers. Currently in Canada, cross-disciplinary discovery of research data is limited. This article discusses the processes followed and results achieved by the Portage Data Discovery Metadata Working Group in its efforts to support the development of the Federated Research Data Repository discovery service in Canada. Ideas around metadata standards, best practices for harvesting research data, developing common data models, and challenges associated with linking research data to other research outputs are explored.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0690.720
Open science0.0980.067
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.152 · 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