MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387092178 · doi:10.54590/pop.2023.004

Describing the HSS Commons: The View from Metadata

2023· article· en· W4387092178 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePop! Public Open Participatory · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataSerendipityCommonsTerminologyRelevance (law)World Wide WebComputer scienceUsabilityFocus (optics)Political scienceHuman–computer interactionEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first year since the launch of the HSS Commons, members have added over 100 publications and the features of the repository’s design are beginning to manifest. Building from Kim Martin’s talk on the possibilities for serendipity in browsing the Commons (Martin, 2022), I explore the descriptive metadata for this first cohort of publications, with particular focus on author-supplied keywords. Information studies predicts that author-supplied metadata enacts diverse sense of the intent and operation of fields, a tendency toward very high-level or general terminology, and the relevance of interaction design choices. This paper presents the metadata practices already visible in the HSS Commons and suggests interaction and maintenance design that can facilitate serendipitous discovery without compromising on the usability and creativity of the platform.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0260.053
Open science0.0190.016
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.292 · 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