Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a review of the literature on data quality and information integrity, a framework was created that is broader than that provided in the widely recognized international control guideline COBIT (ISACA, 2000), but narrower than the concept of information quality discussed in the literature. Experienced IS practitioners' views on the following issues were gathered through a questionnaire administered during two workshops on information integrity held in Toronto and Chicago: definition of information integrity, core attributes and enablers of information integrity and their relative importance, relationship between information integrity attributes and enablers, practitioners' experience with impairments of information integrity for selected industries and data streams and their association with stages of information processing, major phases of the system acquisition/development life cycle, and key system components. One of the policy recommendations arising from the findings of this study is that the COBIT definition of information integrity should be reconsidered. Also, a two-layer framework of core attributes and enablers (identified in this study) should be considered.
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 | 0.118 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".