MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998523709 · doi:10.3897/rio.5.e48809

A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question"

2019· article· en· W2998523709 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Murray, Megan O’Donnell, Mark Laufersweiler, John Novak, Betty Rozum, Santi Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Ideas and Outcomes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataKey (lock)World Wide WebData management planScholarly communicationSection (typography)Survey data collectionState (computer science)Research dataComputer scienceBusinessData scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceData managementDatabaseData curationPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report shares the results of a Spring 2018 survey of 35 academic libraries in the United States in regard to the research data services (RDS) they offer. An executive summary presents key findings while the results section provides detailed information on the answers to specific survey questions related to data repositories, metadata, workshops, and polices.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.343
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designObservational
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Ideas and OutcomesSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207