Machine learning data practices through a data curation lens: An evaluation framework
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of dataset development in machine learning call for greater attention to the data practices that make model development possible and shape its outcomes. Many argue that the adoption of theory and practices from archives and data curation fields can support greater fairness, accountability, transparency, and more ethical machine learning. In response, this paper examines data practices in machine learning dataset development through the lens of data curation. We evaluate data practices in machine learning as data curation practices. To do so, we develop a framework for evaluating machine learning datasets using data curation concepts and principles through a rubric. Through a mixed-methods analysis of evaluation results for 25 ML datasets, we study the feasibility of data curation principles to be adopted for machine learning data work in practice and explore how data curation is currently performed. We find that researchers in machine learning, which often emphasizes model development, struggle to apply standard data curation principles. Our findings illustrate difficulties at the intersection of these fields, such as evaluating dimensions that have shared terms in both fields but non-shared meanings, a high degree of interpretative flexibility in adapting concepts without prescriptive restrictions, obstacles in limiting the depth of data curation expertise needed to apply the rubric, and challenges in scoping the extent of documentation dataset creators are responsible for. We propose ways to address these challenges and develop an overall framework for evaluation that outlines how data curation concepts and methods can inform machine learning data practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it