Open Data Insights from a Smart Bridge Datathon: A Multi-Stakeholder Observation of Smart City Open Data in Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Open Data” efforts are growing, especially in Europe, where open data are seen as a possible ethical driver of innovation. As smart cities continue to develop, it is important to explore how open data will affect the stakeholders of smart public spaces. Making data open and accessible not only has a managerial and technical component but also creates opportunities to shift power dynamics by granting individuals (and entities) access to data they might not otherwise be able to obtain. The scope of those who could access these data is wide, including data-illiterate citizens, burgeoning startups, and foreign militaries. This paper details the process of making data “open” from the MX3D smart bridge in Amsterdam through a “datathon”. The development and outcomes of opening the data and the event itself bring us closer to understanding the complexity of open data access and the extent to which it is useful or empowering for members of the public. While open data research continues to expand, there is still a dearth of studies that qualitatively detail the process and stakeholder concerns for a modern smart city project. This article serves to fill this gap.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it