Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metadata is generally viewed from a third-party perspective, standing aside from both the creator and the audience of a work. This paper looks at the problem from the creator's standpoint: metadata that is deeply intertwined with the process of creation. In additional to more conventional organization metadata, two other important classes of metadata stand out: signature metadata, which is for the creator of a work to claim authorship and communicate with their audience, and process metadata, which is to help the creator recover key details of the creation process for themselves to drive further creation. Some key techniques for capturing and embedding signature and process metadata are detailed for a particular use case are described, along with some lessons learned. It turns out that taking a metadata-first development approach can make is easier both to capture the metadata and implement and tweak the process itself.
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 | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.028 |
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".