Creating Guidance for Canadian Dataverse Curators: Portage Network’s Dataverse Curation Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper introduces the Portage Network’s Dataverse Curation Guide and the new bilingual curation framework developed to support it. Brief Description: Canadian academic institutions and national organizations have been building infrastructure, staffing, and programming to support research data management. Amidst this work, a notable gap emerged between requirements for data curation in general repositories like Dataverse and the requisite workflows and guidance materials needed by curators to meet them. In response, Portage, a national network of data experts, organized a working group to develop a Dataverse curation guide built upon the Data Curation Network’s CURATED workflow. To create a bilingual resource, the original CURATE(D) acronym was modified to CURATION—which has the same meaning in both French and English—and steps were augmented with Dataverse-specific guidance and mapped to three conceptualized levels of curation to assist curators in prioritizing curation actions. Methods: An environmental scan of relevant deposit and curation guidance materials from Canadian and international institutions identified the need for a comprehensive Dataverse Curation Guide, as most existing resources were either depositor-focused or contained only partial workflows. The resulting Guide synthesized these guidance materials into the CURATION steps and mapped actions to various theoretical levels of data repository services and levels of curation. Resources: The following documents are supplemental to the Dataverse Curation Guide: the Portage Dataverse North Metadata Best Practices Guide, the Scholars Portal Dataverse Guide, and the Data Curation Network CURATED Workflow and Data Curation Primers.
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 | 0.052 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.030 |
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".