Improving data quality in large-scale repositories through conflict resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Digital repositories rely on technical metadata to manage their objects. The output of characterization tools is aggregated and analyzed through content profiling. The accuracy and correctness of characterization tools vary; they frequently produce contradicting outputs, resulting in metadata conflicts. The resulting metadata conflicts limit scalable preservation risk assessment and repository management. This article presents and evaluates a rule-based approach to improving data quality in this scenario through expert-conducted conflict resolution. We characterize the data quality challenges and present a method for developing conflict resolution rules to improve data quality. We evaluate the method and the resulting data quality improvements in an experiment on a publicly available document collection. The results demonstrate that our approach enables the effective resolution of conflicts by producing rules that reduce the number of conflicts in the data set from 17 to 3%. This replicable method for presents a significant improvement in content profiling technology for digital repositories, since the enhanced data quality can improve risk assessment and preservation management in digital repository systems.
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 | 0.040 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".