MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004383240 · doi:10.22148/001c.11822

Other people's data: humanities edition

2016· article· en· W3004383240 on OpenAlex
Sarah Allison

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital humanitiesProcess (computing)Raw dataResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceDigital curationWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every project that uses numbers to make sense of literature seems to teach us again that in digital analysis we create more data than we can ever fully use and therefore understand. And yet, with each new project we produce more. In the Community Resource Guide to Digital Humanities Curation, Julia Flanders and Trevor Muñoz define research data as the "raw and abstracted material created as part of research processes and which may be used again as the input to further research." Computational analysis of large corpora is a time- consuming process, and a lot of analysis ends up on the cutting room floor (or on the blog, or in a footnote or an appendix). We need to make better use of that discarded data—the detritus other people shed on the way to an answer. Think of it as data recycling to combat data waste.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.139 · 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