MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303635246 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7156780

FAIR principles in data life for humanities

2022· preprint· en· W4303635246 on OpenAlexaff
Adeline Joffres, Nicolas Larrousse, Alice Ball, Yannick Barborini, Bénédicte Kuntziger

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Council on Social Development
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsDigital humanitiesComputer scienceHumanitiesLibrary scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social Sciences and Humanities are very fragmented and diverse. Researchers have no unified access to European services, and sometimes not even to national services. Today, scientists are strongly encouraged to deposit their publications in an open archive and to make their data accessible through verified repositories. This Proof of concept will improve interoperability between the two platforms: HAL and Nakala. Learn more about the EOSC-Pillar use case 5

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.048
Scholarly communication0.0260.037
Open science0.0070.015
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.163 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207