MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890629418 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.872

Leveraging best practices in data governance: An organization-wide data inventory and mapping project to support a five year data strategy

2018· article· en· W2890629418 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Travers, Crystal Campitelli, Richard L. Light, Eric de, Julie Stabile, Karey Iron

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData governanceData qualityData warehouseComputer scienceEnterprise data managementData managementWorkflowMetadataData dictionaryData elementData virtualizationInformation governanceData scienceDatabaseWorld Wide WebBusinessInformation systemEngineeringManagement information systemsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionThe professional regulation sector is moving toward risk-informed approaches that require high quality data. A key component of a corporate 2017 Data Strategy is the implementation of a data inventory and mapping project to catalogue, centralize, document and govern data assets that support regulatory decisions, programs and operations.
 Objectives and ApproachIn a data rich organization, the goals of the data inventory are to: enhance authoritative data that support programs; identify data duplications/gaps; identify data sources, owners and users; and, apply consistent data management and standards organizationally. Routinely used data assets outside the large enterprise workflow system (excel/word files; databases; paper collections) were catalogued. Using data governance principles and a facilitated questionnaire, departmental data stewards were interviewed about their generated data. Questions included data purpose/sources/types/formats/owners, retention rates, analytical products, gaps and visions for a desired data state. A data mapping methodology highlighted data set and variable connections within and across departments.
 ResultsTo date, over 40 staff members in 10 departments were identified as data content experts. In addition to data in the corporate enterprise system, over 80 unique datasets were identified. In 1 large department, over 2,000 data elements across 26 datasets were inventoried. Data mapping analysis revealed thematic data domains, including member demographics, outcomes, certifications, tracking and financial data, collected and held in multiple formats ((Microsoft Access, Excel, Word), SPSS, PDF, e-mails and paper documents). While 72% of the data elements were formatted numerically, approximately 8% were free text. Significant data redundancies across staff members and departments were revealed, as well as unstandardized variable naming conventions. Gaps analysis highlighted need for standardized, electronic data, where not available and data management training.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsCustomized data mapping reports to data users will facilitate the development of local, standardized departmental data hubs that will centrally link to a centralized data repository to facilitate seamless organization-wide analytics, improvements in current data management practices and greater data collaboration with the ultimate goal of supporting risk-informed approaches.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.036
Open science0.0230.016
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 head0.629
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.070 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207