MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399415998 · doi:10.2166/9781789061154_0241

Conclusions and outlook

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399415998 on OpenAlexaff
D. Aguado, J. Alferes, Adrienne Menniti, Queralt Plana, M.V. Ruano, Ola Samuelsson, Kris Villez, E. Zegers

Bibliographic record

VenueIWA Publishing eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, we provide notes on the state of metadata collection and organization practices and reflect on the achievements of the MetaCO task group. We also include an utility perspective on how to use this report in daily data management practice and a short guide is provided to show how metadata practices can be initiated. The chapter, and the report, is concluded within an outlook, sketching future progress and opportunities on the horizon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1510.079

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIWA Publishing eBooksSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207