MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183814531 · doi:10.69520/jipe.v3i1.93

Digital Badge Metadata: A Case Study in Quality Assurance

2021· article· en· W3183814531 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of innovation in polytechnic education. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataQuality assuranceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital badges are competency-based credentials that provide specific information within the metadata. However, there appears to be no research investigating the quality of the information conveyed in the metadata. To better understand how to convey the value of digital badges, this study investigated the quality of the metadata. This study used mixed-method content analysis on the digital badges developed in a micro-certification pilot project. The results revealed the similarities and differences between the metadata, as well as the quality conveyed. This study found that metadata information's type and location may affect the perceived value of digital badges. Building on the research of digital badge quality assurance, this study suggests developing standards for the metadata.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.041
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.328 · 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