MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399764531 · doi:10.21428/3e88f64f.4b5bf628

Review: Data Primer

2024· article· es· W4399764531 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Polyck-O'Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Digital Humanities · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)Computer scienceComputational biologyBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data management and curation are important processes for digital humanists.Without proper planning and management, the value of the data, as well as the labor involved in researching, collecting, and analyzing the data, could be lost!Data Primer: Making Digital Humanities Research Data Public helps researchers integrate best practices when writing a data management plan for funding applications and offers data curation strategies for collecting,

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0260.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.037

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueReviews in Digital HumanitiesSame topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207