Open Data Governance at the Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP): From the Walled Garden to the Arboretum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific research communities pursue dual imperatives in implementing strategies to share their data. These communities attempt to maximize the accessibility of biomedical data for downstream research use, in furtherance of open science objectives. Simultaneously, such communities safeguard the interests of research participants through data stewardship measures and the integration of suitable risk disclosures to the informed consent process. The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) convened an Ethics and Governance Committee composed of experts in bioethics, neuroethics, and law to develop holistic policy tools, organizational approaches, and technological supports to align the open governance of data with ethical and legal norms. The CONP has adopted novel platform governance methods that favor full data openness, legitimated through the use of robust deidentification processes and informed consent practices. The experience of the CONP is articulated as a potential template for other open science efforts to further build upon. This experience highlights informed consent guidance, deidentification practices, ethicolegal metadata, platform-level norms, and commercialization and publication policies as the principal pillars of a practicable approach to the governance of open data. The governance approach adopted by the CONP stands as a viable model for the broader neuroscience and open science communities to adopt for sharing data in full open access.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open scienceScholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.040 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".