Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper analyzes how the value of open data varies based on the goal of the open data program, and the format in which the data are provided. Four cities across Canada which make up the G4 are examined to identify common themes of open data available, and assess the data formats found most often within these themes. Further, the City of Toronto is examined in a case study to evaluate their open data program and assess if spatial open data are more prevalent within the theme of innovation for economic development. Findings from this research indicate that there are some data themes which typically have mostly spatial and/or non-spatial data formats, while there is also a group of themes which have a wide variety of both formats available. This paper also finds that the City of Toronto has a high prevalence of spatial open data within the theme of innovation. The evaluation created for this study could be used in assessing the value of spatial open data within and between cities.
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 | 0.037 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".