MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201577713 · doi:10.1002/hyp.14385

Ten best practices to strengthen stewardship and sharing of water science data in Canada

2021· article· en· W3201577713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bhaleka Persaud, Krysha A. Dukacz, Gopal Chandra Saha, Amber Peterson, L. Moradi, Stephen O'Hearn, Erin Clary, Juliane Mai, Michael Steeleworthy, Jason J. Venkiteswaran, Homa Kheyrollah Pour, Brent B. Wolfe, Sean K. Carey, John W. Pomeroy, C. M. DeBeer, J. M. Waddington, Philippe Van Cappellen, Jimmy Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of SaskatchewanWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)Best practiceData managementData sharingInteroperabilityFutures contractAsset (computer security)Data management planAllianceData governanceFunding AgencyComputer scienceBusinessKnowledge managementPublic relationsEngineering managementPolitical scienceEngineeringWorld Wide WebService (business)MarketingFinanceData quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water science data are a valuable asset that both underpins the original research project and bolsters new research questions, particularly in view of the increasingly complex water issues facing Canada and the world. Whilst there is general support for making data more broadly accessible, and a number of water science journals and funding agencies have adopted policies that require researchers to share data in accordance with the findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable (FAIR) principles, there are still questions about effective management of data to protect their usefulness over time. Incorporating data management practices and standards at the outset of a water science research project will enable researchers to efficiently locate, analyse and use data throughout the project lifecycle, and will ensure the data maintain their value after the project has ended. Here, some common misconceptions about data management are highlighted, along with insights and practical advice to assist established and early career water science researchers as they integrate data management best practices and tools into their research. Freely available tools and training opportunities made available in Canada through Global Water Futures, The Gordon Foundation DataStream, the Digital Research Alliance of Canada Portage Network, Compute Canada, and university libraries, among others are compiled. These include webinars, training videos, and individual support for the water science community that together enable researchers to protect their data assets and meet the expectations of journals and funders. The perspectives shared here have been developed as part of the Global Water Futures programme's efforts to improve data management and promote the use of common data practices and standards in the context of water science in Canada. Ten best practices are proposed that may be broadly applicable to other disciplines in the natural sciences and can be adopted and adapted globally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.197
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1970.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.019
Science and technology studies0.0380.037
Scholarly communication0.0480.027
Open science0.0170.048
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207