MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122249109 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1393269

Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: how well are we doing?

2015· dataset· en· W3122249109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominique G. Roche, Loeske E. B. Kruuk

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyEvolutionary ecologyData scienceEarth scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data for: Roche DG, Kruuk LEB, Lanfear R, Binning SA (2015) Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: how well are we doing? <em>PLOS Biology</em> e1002295 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002295 Data collected by DGR and SAB. Please refer to the manuscript for data collection methods and statistical analyses. For questions or to notify the authors if any errors are identified in the data, please contact Dominique Roche (dominique.roche@mail.mcgill.ca), Loeske Kruuk (loeske.kruuk@anu.edu.au), Rob Lanfear (rob.lanfear@gmail.com), or Sandra Binning (sandra.binning@mail.mcgill.ca).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.026
Open science0.0120.026
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.037 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207