MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807917947 · doi:10.18438/eblip29415

Social Scientists’ Data Reuse Principally Influenced by Disciplinary Norms, Attitude, and Perceived Effort

2018· article· en· W2807917947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseNormativeTechnology acceptance modelSurvey data collectionPsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceUsabilityEngineeringPolitical scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Yoon, A. & Kim, Y. (2017). Social scientists’ data reuse behaviors: Exploring the roles of attitudinal beliefs, attitudes, norms, and data repositories. Library & Information Science Research, 39(3), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.07.008 Abstract Objective – To propose and test a model grounded in constructs from psychology and information systems to explain data reuse behaviours and practices in the social sciences. Design – Electronic survey. Setting – ProQuest’s Community of Science Scholars database. Subjects – Included 2,193 randomly selected social scientists associated with U.S. academic institutions. Methods – An electronic survey was distributed to a random sample of U.S.-based social science scholars from ProQuest’s Community of Science Scholars database. The survey adapted 21 measurement items for constructs taken from the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM), including perceived usefulness, perceived effort, and the subjective norm surrounding data reuse. Main Results – There were 292 valid responses received, giving a response rate of 14.91%. Survey data largely validated the authors’ theoretical model. Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors all influence social scientists’ intended data reuse. In particular, perceived usefulness of reusing data and subjective norms surrounding data reuse in one’s discipline positively correlate with intentions to reuse data, and perceived concern of reusing data negatively correlate with intentions to reuse data. Conclusion – Data reuse in the social sciences is influenced by the perceptions and beliefs held by social scientists. Social scientists reuse others’ data when they perceive that doing so would improve their research productivity and when their discipline has strong norms of data reuse. They avoid reusing others’ data when they believe that doing so is problematic (e.g., if they believe reusing infringes on copyright). Supporters of data sharing, including librarians, are encouraged to apply these findings by proactively educating researchers on the benefits, potential obstacles, and methods of data reuse.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.350
Open science0.0030.005
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207