MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283449126 · doi:10.1145/3530190.3534829

Note: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to build a Data Catalog and support research on the Sustainable Development Goals

2022· article· en· W4283449126 on OpenAlexaff
Andy Spezzatti, Elham Kheradmand, Kartik Gupta, Marie Peras, Roxaneh Zaminpeyma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceProsperitySustainable developmentData scienceSustainabilityBig dataWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the framework adopted by the global community to encourage taking actions on the multiple challenges facing the world today to ensure environmental protection, health and well-being, and economic prosperity. This framework provides a detailed list of indicators that are interconnected and cover a holistic view on sustainable development. The goals were defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 and expected to be achieved by 2030. Since the release of this agenda, the research community has begun to intensify work in these areas, yet these efforts seem to be relatively limited. This is especially true about the employment of data and artificial intelligence (AI), which are not widely engaged in SDGs related topics. The AI-based research on SDGs and further developments depends heavily on the availability and accessibility of related real-world data collected by the community. However, there is no central, structured, and holistic database of datasets and metadata associated with the SDGs, which prevents large-scale collaboration on these topics. In this paper, we present the SDG Data Catalog, a global open-source database indexing SDG-related datasets, associated metadata, and research networks. We describe the construction of this catalog, which relies on state-of-the-art natural language processing models with human supervision. The catalog breaks down data silos and helps sustainability researchers navigate the data sea to initiate effective collaborations.

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 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.606
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.081 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207