Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many complexities involved in using data and advanced technologies to help resolve public health emergencies. These complexities highlight the need to embrace a broader framework of data governance with three foundational questions: ( a) who decides about data flows, ( b) on what basis, and ( c) with what accountability and oversight. These questions can accommodate the issues that have arisen in the literature regarding new types of data harms. However, these questions also foreground important issues of power, authority, and legitimacy. Data governance can provide an organizing normative framework to address emerging data themes including access to data, collective decision making, data intermediaries, data sovereignty, design and digital infrastructure, regulatory technologies, the rule of law, and social trust and license. The pandemic experience with contact tracing apps, in particular, showed the many unresolved governance challenges.
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 | 0.083 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".