MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950638472

Who Are Government OpenData Infomediaries? A Preliminary Scan and Classification of Open Data Users and Products

2017· article· en· W2950638472 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Peter A. Johnson, Sarah Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpen governmentGovernment (linguistics)Computer scienceBusinessOpen dataData miningWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open data, that is, the provision of government data in a publicly accessible, machine-readable format, with liberal usage terms, has become commonplace. Despite the promise of open data, there are many questions about who is accessing government open data and what they are using it for. This research presents a characterization of the infomediary, a third party who accesses government open data and creates value-added products from it. Using four major Canadian municipal open data providers, we present an information scan and classification of open data infomediaries and the products they create. Five classifications of infomediary are proposed: government, private sector, NGO, academic, and media. Within each of these classifications, the type of infomediary products created and the delivery method used are summarized. Findings from this research indicate a diversity in infomediary actors and products, but that this activity is largely concentrated in government and private sector infomediary types. Further considerations of the impact of infomediary activity on government open data provision are presented as important future directions of research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207