Teaching FAIR in computational chemistry: managing and publishing data using the twin tools of compute portals and repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the emerging area of tools for managing research resources and the data produced from them is summarised from the perspective of two decades of use in teaching and research at one institution. These tools are a portal or electronic laboratory notebook for computational chemistry interfaced in one direction to a high-performance computing resource and in the other direction to a modern research data repository. The essential features of both these tools are described over two generations of each, with examples of student work cited as examples using persistent identifiers or PIDs, better known as DOIs. Underpinning this is the metadata describing the data being processed. The article outlines the evolution of managing such metadata-rich data and its progress towards what can now be summarised by the acronym FAIR data, itself enabling future emerging areas such as knowledge graphs.
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 | 0.032 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".