Understanding and Improving Data Repurposing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in an age of unprecedented opportunities to use existing data for tasks not anticipated when those data were collected, resulting in widespread data repurposing. This commentary defines and maps the scope of data repurposing to highlight its importance for organizations and society and the need to study data repurposing as a frontier of data management. We explain how repurposing differs from original data use and data reuse and then develop a framework for data repurposing consisting of concepts and activities for adapting existing data to new tasks. The framework and its implications are illustrated using two examples of repurposing, one in healthcare and one in citizen science. We conclude by suggesting opportunities for research to better understand data repurposing and enable more effective data repurposing practices.
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 | 0.257 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".