MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391383141 · doi:10.23974/ijol.2024.vol8.4.339

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Institutional Research Data Management Strategies

2024· article· en· W4391383141 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Librarianship · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsCapilano University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)BusinessPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research data management (RDM) is a field of emerging concern for academic librarians. As funder agencies increasingly mandate institutions and researchers to ethically and responsibly manage their research data, academic librarians are frequently tasked with creating institutional strategies and services to support researchers. This article explores how a racialized librarian at a medium-sized, teaching-focused Canadian university created an institutional research data management strategy through a process informed by critical librarianship research and contributive justice (Gomberg, 2016; Honma & Chu, 2018). It examines the lack of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) principles in both funder directives and RDM research literature and proposes an approach to do institutional RDM work in an EDI-centered way.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.074
Open science0.0110.286
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.027 · 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