MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220971284 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5837500

D7.4 How to be FAIR with your data. A teaching and training handbook for higher education institutions

2022· preprint· en· W4220971284 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Engelhardt, Katarzyna Biernacka, Aoife Coffey, Ronald Cornet, Alina Danciu, Yuri Demchenko, Stephen Downes, Christopher Erdmann, Federica Garbuglia, Kerstin Germer, Kerstin Helbig, M. Hellström, Kristina Hettne, D. Brynn Hibbert, Mijke Jetten, Yulia Karimova, Viviana Letizia, Valerie McCutcheon, Barbara McGillivray, Jenny Ostrop, Britta Petersen, Ana Petrus, Stefan Reichmann, Najla Rettberg, Carmen Reverté, Nick Rochlin, Bregt Saenen, Birgit Schmidt, Jolien Scholten, Hugh Shanahan, Armin Straube, Veerle Van den Eynden, Justine Vandendorpe, Shanmugasundaram Venkataram, Cord Wiljes, Ulrike Wuttke, Joanne Yeomans, Biru Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Mathematics educationComputer scienceMedical educationSociologyPedagogyPsychologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This handbook aims to support higher education institutions with the integration of FAIR-related content in their curricula and teaching. It was written and edited by a group of about 40 collaborators in a series of six book sprint events that took place between 1 and 10 June 2021. The document provides practical material, such as competence profiles, learning outcomes and lesson plans, and supporting information. It incorporates community feedback received during the public consultation which ran from 27 July to 12 September 2021.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.093

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.135 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207