MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402519936 · doi:10.1075/ijlcr.24010.paq

The Core Metadata Schema for Learner Corpora (LC-meta)

2024· article· en· W4402519936 on OpenAlexaff
Magali Paquot, Alexander König, Egon Stemle, Jennifer-Carmen Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Learner Corpus Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceSchema (genetic algorithms)Information retrievalAnnotationWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Metadata is critical throughout the research process, from study design to corpus selection/compilation, result interpretability and cumulative research. To date, however, learner corpus research has not developed community standards or best practices for metadata collection and sharing. In this article, we present the results of a collaborative project aimed at addressing this issue by developing a standardised metadata schema for learner corpora. We first describe the procedure implemented to design the schema, including the ways in which we continuously involved learner corpus researchers in this initiative. We then introduce the Core Metadata Schema for Learner Corpora (LC-meta, Version 2), which consists in a set of obligatory and optional variables that encapsulate crucial information about L2 data (administrative details, corpus design, text-related variables, learner-related variables, annotations, annotators, or transcribers). Finally, we discuss future developments and emphasise the importance of continued maintenance and further refinement of this schema by the research community.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Learner Corpus ResearchSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207