A Recommender System for Scientific Datasets and Analysis Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific datasets and analysis pipelines are increasingly being shared publicly in the interest of open science. However, mechanisms are lacking to reliably identify which pipelines and datasets can appropriately be used together. Given the increasing number of high-quality public datasets and pipelines, this lack of clear compatibility threatens the findability and reusability of these resources. We investigate the feasibility of a collaborative filtering system to recommend pipelines and datasets based on provenance records from previous executions. We evaluate our system using datasets and pipelines extracted from the Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform, a national initiative for open neuroscience. The recommendations provided by our system (AUC= 0.83) are significantly better than chance and outperform recommendations made by domain experts using their previous knowledge as well as pipeline and dataset descriptions (AUC= 0.63). In particular, domain experts often neglect low-level technical aspects of a pipeline-dataset interaction, such as the level of pre-processing, which are captured by a provenance-based system. We conclude that provenance-based pipeline and dataset recommenders are feasible and beneficial to the sharing and usage of open-science resources. Future work will focus on the collection of more comprehensive provenance traces, and on deploying the system in production.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".