International data governance for neuroscience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As neuroscience projects increase in scale and cross international borders, different ethical principles, national and international laws, regulations, and policies for data sharing must be considered. These concerns are part of what is collectively called data governance. Whereas neuroscience data transcend borders, data governance is typically constrained within geopolitical boundaries. An international data governance framework and accompanying infrastructure can assist investigators, institutions, data repositories, and funders with navigating disparate policies. Here, we propose principles and operational considerations for how data governance in neuroscience can be navigated at an international scale and highlight gaps, challenges, and opportunities in a global brain data ecosystem. We consider how to approach data governance in a way that balances data protection requirements and the need for open science, so as to promote international collaboration through federated constructs such as the International Brain Initiative (IBI).
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 | 0.035 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".