Documenting Geographically and Contextually Diverse Language Data Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary large-scale data collection efforts have prioritized the amount of data collected to improve large language models (LLM). This quantitative approach has resulted in concerns for the rights of data subjects represented in data collections. This concern is exacerbated by a lack of documentation and analysis tools, making it difficult to interrogate these collections. Mindful of these pitfalls, we present a methodology for documentation-first, human-centered data collection. We apply this approach in an effort to train a multilingual LLM. We identify a geographically diverse set of target language groups (Arabic varieties, Basque, Chinese varieties, Catalan, English, French, Indic languages, Indonesian, Niger-Congo languages, Portuguese, Spanish, and Vietnamese, as well as programming languages) for which to collect metadata on potential data sources. We structure this effort by developing an online catalogue in English as a tool for gathering metadata through public hackathons. We present our tool and analyses of the resulting resource metadata, including distributions over languages, regions, and resource types, and discuss our lessons learned.
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 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 | 0.027 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".