MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6894095416 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8072337

"We are the Champions": Exploring a Data Champions Pilot in the Canadian Context

2023· article· en· W6894095416 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Dementia Research AllianceCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)AlliancePanel discussionChampionSession (web analytics)InterimCommunity engagementData management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Digital Research Alliance of Canada’s (the Alliance) Data Champions Pilot Project is a Canadian funding opportunity built from other international Data Champions programs that came before, and is designed specifically to promote a shift in data culture within the Canadian Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) ecosystem. The role of the Data Champion (DC) is to develop activities at the local, regional and/or national level that advance awareness, understanding, development, and adoption of research data management (RDM) tools, best practices, and resources in Canada, while focusing on a series of categories: Training/mentoring; Promoting/advancing RDM; Addressing disciplinary challenges; Driving culture change; and Informing future initiatives. Eighteen awardees from Canadian post-secondary institutions, research hospitals, and not-for-profits were selected to be the Alliance’s Data Champions and were funded to undertake their diverse slate of DC initiatives and outcomes. Moderated by Jen Pecoskie (RDM Project Coordinator, the Alliance), this session will explore the Canadian Pilot edition of Data Champions. First, short presentations will be given by the moderator and presenters to provide context on the Alliance’s DC Pilot and to showcase the initiatives of three DC awardees, so the audience will see the range of DC projects. This will be followed by panel questions from the moderator. Panel questions will explore topics such as: What challenges did you experience as part of your DC project experience? What lessons were learned as related to RDM in Canada (or wider) that stemmed from your individual project experience?; Part of the DC funding opportunity included engaging with a DC Community of Practice. What did being part of this wider community bring to your initiative?; and What does the future of your project look like? Questions from the audience will also be incorporated into the panel discussion.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0790.031
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0060.016
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.084 · 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 designQualitative
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207