MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996510176 · doi:10.21810/pop.2019.005

Knowledge Organization For Open Scholarship

2019· article· en· W2996510176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Bullard

Bibliographic record

VenuePop! Public Open Participatory · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSituatedSubject (documents)Object (grammar)SociologyWork (physics)Computer scienceData scienceEpistemologyKnowledge managementPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This introductory piece explores the role that subject description—the work of determining an object’s aboutness and assigning relevant terms—has in creating infrastructures for open scholarship. Of particular concern is the potential to adopt the dominant, universalist systems common across North American libraries and databases, or to shift to situated and accountable systems that take care to describe objects consistent with the values of local communities of creators and readers.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0280.022
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.008

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.088 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePop! Public Open ParticipatorySame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207