View points on data points: A shared vocabulary for cross-domain conversations on data and metadata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing data across scientific domains is often impeded by differences in the language used to describe data and metadata. We argue that disagreements over the boundary between data and metadata are a common source of confusion. Information appearing as data in one domain may be considered metadata in another domain, a process that we call “semantic transposition.” To promote greater understanding, we develop new terminology for describing how data and metadata are structured, and we show how it can be applied to a variety of widely used data formats. Our approach builds upon previous work, such as the Observations and Measurements (ISO 19156) data model. We rely on tools from the Data Documentation Initiative’s Cross Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) to illustrate how the same data can be represented in different ways, and how information considered data in one format can become metadata in another format.
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 | 0.053 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".