MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220990419 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5872645

FAIR Digital Object Demonstrators 2021

2022· report· en· W4220990419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · 2022
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives a summary of implementation activities in the realm of FAIR Digital Objects (FDO). It gives an idea which software components are robust and used for many years, which components are comparatively new and are being tested out in pilot projects and what the challenges are that need to be urgently addressed by the FDO community. After basically only one year of advancing the FDO specifications by the FDO Forum we can recognise an increasing momentum to test and integrate essential FDO components. However, many developments still occur as soloistic engagements that offer a scattered picture. It is widely agreed that it is now time to combine these different pilots to comprehensive testbeds, to identify still existing gaps and to turn some services into components of a convincing and stable infrastructure. This step is urgently needed to convince even more institutions to invest in FDO technology and therefore to increase FAIRness of the evolving global data space.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.026
Open science0.0150.027
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.214 · 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