MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327591837 · doi:10.18438/eblip30280

An Online Community of Data Enthusiasts Collaborates to Seek, Share, and Make Sense of Data

2023· article· en· W4327591837 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceSample (material)Coding (social sciences)Topic modelConstruct (python library)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebOnline communityData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Stvilia, B., & Gibradze, L. (2022). Seeking and sharing datasets in an online community of data enthusiasts. Library & Information Science Research 44(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101160 Objective – To understand the major activities, tools, sources, and challenges of online communities focused on datasets. Design – Content analysis informed by activity theory. Setting – The r/Datasets subreddit, a web forum for sharing, seeking, and discussing datasets. Subjects – 1232 “hot” or “top” discussion threads (1232 original posts and 6813 responding comments) first posted between 2010 and 2020. Methods – The researchers used Reddit’s API to collect their sample of threads. Using a random subset of the sample, the researchers developed a coding scheme for content analysis, which identified major themes in the data. Through this process, they controlled for quality: each researcher coded half the subset independently, then together evaluated their intercoder reliability and discussed and resolved disagreements. The researchers also employed labelled latent Dirchlet allocation to construct topic models corresponding to the theme’s manual content analysis, which produced profiles of the top 100 terms most likely to appear in that topic. Finally, the researchers extracted URLs from threads in the sample to ascertain types of information and data sources used by the community. Presenting their findings, the researchers discussed notable themes and proposed a metadata model for describing datasets, the Data Q&A metadata (DQAM) model. Main Results – The r/Datasets community engages in three distinct activities: asking and answering questions, disseminating information, and community building. The closely related Q&A and dissemination activities shared themes of obtaining and aggregating data, sensemaking, collaborating and crowdsourcing, and data evaluation. Community members frequently discussed tools, competencies, and sources for data work. Major challenges for members of the community related to the general themes of data quality, accessibility, ethics, and legality. A proposed 16-element metadata schema should meet the needs of data enthusiasts. Conclusion – The content analysis reveals a dedicated community engaged in an array of data-seeking and data-sharing activities. Data producers should be mindful of how their data can be accessed and used outside of their original professional or scholarly contexts.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.779
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.183 · 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