Operationalizing and evaluating the FAIRness concept for a good quality of data sharing in Research: the RDA-SHARC-IG (SHAring Rewards and Credit Interest Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The RDA-SHARC (SHAring Reward & Credit) interest group is an interdisciplinary volunteer member-based group set up as part of RDA (Research Data Alliance) to unpack and improve crediting and rewarding mechanisms in the sharing process throughout the data life cycle. Background and objectives of this group are reported here. Notably, one of the objectives is to promote the inclusion of data sharing activities in the research (& researchers) assessment scheme at national and European levels. To this aim, the RDA-SHARC-IG is developing two assessment grids using criteria to establish if data are compliant to the F.A.I.R principles (findable /accessible / interoperable / reusable) based on previous works on FAIR data management (Reymonet et al., 2018; Wilkinson et al., 2018; and E.U.Guidelines*): 1/ The self-assessment grid to be used by a scientist as a ‘checklist’ to identify her/his own activities and to pinpoint the hurdles that hinder efficient sharing and reuse of his/her data by all potential users. 2/ The two-level grid (quick/extensive) to be used by the evaluator to assess the quality of the researcher/scientist sharing practice, over a given period, taking into account the means & support available over that period. Assessment criteria are classified according their importance with regards to FAIRness (essential / recommended / desirable) meanwhile good practices are recommended for critical steps. To implement a highly fair assessment of the sharing process, appropriate criteria must be selected in order to design optimal generic assessment grids. This process requires participation, time and input from volunteer scientists data producers/users from various fields.
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 | 0.215 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".