Data and Tools Integration in the Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) portal to answer the research community's need for flexible data sharing resources and provide advanced tools for search and processing infrastructure capacity. This portal differs from previous data sharing projects as it integrates datasets originating from a number of already existing platforms or databases through DataLad, a file level data integrity and access layer. The portal is also an entry point for searching and accessing a large number of standardized and containerized software and links to a computing infrastructure. It leverages community standards to help document and facilitate reuse of both datasets and tools, and already shows a growing community adoption giving access to more than 60 neuroscience datasets and over 70 tools. The CONP portal demonstrates the feasibility and offers a model of a distributed data and tool management system across 17 institutions throughout Canada.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".