The Canadian consortium for arctic data interoperability : an emerging polar information network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Established in 2015, the Canadian Consortium for Arctic Data Interoperability (CCADI) is an emerging initiative to develop an integrated Canadian arctic data anagement system that will facilitate information discovery, establish metadata and data sharing standards, enable \ninteroperability among existing data infrastructures, and that will be accessible to a broad audience of users. \n \nKey to the CCADI vision are: standards and mechanisms for metadata interoperability and semantic interoperability; a distributed data exchange platform; streamlined data services with common entry, access, search, match, analysis, visualization and output tools; an intellectual property and sensitive data service; and data stewardship capacity. This will be a particularly challenging set of tasks given that the data planned for inclusion is multidisciplinary, in multiple types that range from sensor data to material artifacts, and, in some cases, confidential.
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 | 0.039 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".