Stewardship Maturity Assessment Tools for Modernization of Climate Data Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High quality and well-managed climate data are the cornerstone of all climate services. Consistently assessing how well the data are managed is one way to establish or demonstrate the trustworthiness of the data. This paper presents the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Stewardship Maturity Matrix for Climate Data (SMM-CD) and the subsidiary SMM-CD for National and Regional Purposes (SMM-CD_NRP). Both these matrices have been developed with the support of the WMO and its High-Quality Global Data Management Framework for Climate (HQ-GDMFC). These self-assessment tools enable data managers to discover WMO recommended data stewardship practices, determine a roadmap for future development and improvement, as well as compare their process against other data providers. Datasets which have been maturity assessed are included in the WMO Climate Data Catalogue, where users can include the results of these maturity assessments into their decision-making process. The SMM-CD contains four categories (data access, usability and usage, quality management, and data management) each of which has a number of aspects, with scores assigned to one of five levels. A smaller number of categories in the SMM-CD_NRP are assigned to four levels appropriate for operationally produced datasets which are national or regional in scope. We explore a number of case studies where these matrices have been applied, as well as supply links to where the Guidance Documents and Assessment Templates (which may be updated) can be found.
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 | 0.067 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".