Data Soup Webinar, December 16, 2021: hosted by the Data Curation Network and the Journal of eScience Librarianship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data Soup is a collaboration between the Journal of eScience Librarianship (JeSLIB) and the Data Curation Networkto host a series of community focused webinars/discussions to exchange practices for curating research data of different formats or subject areas among data curators. The lineup of the inaugural webinar includes the following speakers and topics from the recent JeSLIB Special Issue: Data Curation in Practice: Creating Guidance for Canadian Dataverse Curators: Portage Network’s Dataverse Curation Guide Alexandra Cooper, Michael Steeleworthy, Ève Paquette-Bigras, Erin Clary, Erin MacPherson, Louise Gillis, and Jason Brodeur, https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol10/iss3/2; Active Curation of Large Longitudinal Surveys: A Case Study Inna Kouper, Karen L. Tucker, Kevin Tharp, Mary Ellen van Booven, and Ashley Clark, https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2021.1210; Data Curation through Catalogs: A Repository-Independent Model for Data Discovery Helenmary Sheridan, Anthony J. Dellureficio, Melissa A. Ratajeski, Sara Mannheimer, and Terrie R. Wheeler, https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2021.1203.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.558 | 0.611 |
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".