Determining category metadata in open data portals – an approach based on Formal Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efforts for data transparency and open government initiatives have resulted in a large amount of data being published on open data portals. These portals are organized to enhance published data accessibility by providing search mechanisms that utilize metadata such as category, tags, format, and publisher. However, due to the metadata incompleteness, such as missing category information, datasets are harder to find. Therefore, within this paper, we address the issue of missing category information by proposing an approach for categorizing datasets using keywords and their usage within categories. The presented approach is based on the Formal Concept Analysis method, which is used to create a hierarchical order of keywords grounded on their usage within categories on one open data portal. Further, we present the evaluation of the presented method using data from the Canadian open data portal.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".