MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981956847

Public access to research data in language documentation: Challenges and possible strategies

2019· preprint· en· W2981956847 on OpenAlexaff
Mandana Seyfeddinipur, Felix K. Ameka, Lissant Bolton, Jonathan Blumtritt, Brian Carpenter, Hilaria Cruz, Sebastian Drude, Patience Epps, Vera Ferreira, Ana Vilacy Galúcio, Birgit Hellwig, Oliver Hinte, Gary Holton, Dagmar Jung, Irmgarda Kasinskaite Buddeberg, Manfred Krifka, Susan Smythe Kung, Miyuki Monroig, Ayu'nwi N. Neba, Sebastian Nordhoff, Brigitte Pakendorf, Kilu von Prince, Felix Rau, Keren Rice, Michael Rießler, Nick Thieberger, Paul Trilsbeek, Hein van der Voort, Tony Woodbury

Bibliographic record

VenueKölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanarie
FundersUniversität zu KölnVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsDocumentationComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Open Access Movement promotes free and unfettered access to research publications and, increasingly, to the primary data which underly those publications. As the field of documentary linguistics seeks to record and preserve culturally and linguistically relevant materials, the question of how openly accessible these materials should be becomes increasingly important. This paper aims to guide researchers and other stakeholders in finding an appropriate balance between accessibility and confidentiality of data, addressing community questions and legal, institutional, and intellectual issues that pose challenges to accessible data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.370
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.542
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3700.542
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0260.065
Scholarly communication0.0720.112
Open science0.0130.073
Research integrity0.0330.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln)Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207