Open Data Training Workshop: Tri-Agency Research Data Management and Ethical Considerations of Open Data Sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective(s): Momentum for open access to research is growing. Funding agencies and publishers are increasingly requiring researchers make their data and research outputs open and publicly available. However, this introduces many challenges, especially when managing potentially sensitive clinical data. The aim of this 1 hr virtual workshop is to provide participants with foundational knowledge that supports planning for open data in future research projects. Specifically, participants will: 1. Gain an understanding of the new Tri-Agency Research Data Management policy and the analogous progress of the University of British Columbia's (UBC) Research Data Management (RDM) strategy and how they can be applied. 2. Gain an understanding of the ethical, privacy, and legal considerations of sharing data. 3. Learn practical skills for incorporating open data language into REB applications and consent form. Workshop Agenda: 1. "Becoming familiar with the new Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy" - Speaker: Eugene Barsky, Research Data Librarian, UBC Library 2. "Ethics and Practical Considerations of Open Data Sharing." - Speaker: Brittney Schichter, Director, Research Integration & Innovation, Provincial Health Service Authority (PHSA) Research and Academic Services This workshop draws on work supported by the Digital Research Alliance of Canada. Data Description: Presentation slides, Workshop Video, and Workshop Communication Eugene Barksy: Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy presentation and accompanying PowerPoint slides. Brittney Schichter: Ethics and Practical Considerations of Open Data Sharing presentation and accompanying Powerpoint slides. This workshop was developed as part of Dr. Ansermino's Data Champions Pilot Project supported by the Digital Research Alliance of Canada.
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 | 0.098 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.029 |
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".