MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283167130 · doi:10.1145/3531146.3534637

Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology

2022· article· en· W4283167130 on OpenAlexaff
Yacine Jernite, Huu Du Nguyen, Stella Biderman, Anna Rogers, Maraim Masoud, Valentin Danchev, Samson Tan, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Nishant Subramani, Isaac Johnson, Gérard Dupont, Jesse Dodge, Kyle Lo, Zeerak Talat, Dragomir Radev, Aaron Gokaslan, Somaieh Nikpoor, Peter Henderson, Rishi Bommasani, Margaret Mitchell

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceData governanceWork (physics)Knowledge managementComputer scienceData scienceData managementScale (ratio)Public relationsPolitical scienceBusinessDatabaseData qualityEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent emergence and adoption of Machine Learning technology, and specifically of Large Language Models, has drawn attention to the need for systematic and transparent management of language data. This work proposes an approach to global language data governance that attempts to organize data management amongst stakeholders, values, and rights. Our proposal is informed by prior work on distributed governance that accounts for human values and grounded by an international research collaboration that brings together researchers and practitioners from 60 countries. The framework we present is a multi-party international governance structure focused on language data, and incorporating technical and organizational tools needed to support its work.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0190.037
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencySame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207