Wikidata Knowledge Graph for the Earth Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wikidata has become a central hub for life science related knowledge and data that conforms to the FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability as outlined in the influential “Science Forum: Wikidata as a knowledge graph for the life sciences(https://elifesciences.org/articles/52614).” Using this work on the life sciences topic as a model, how can the earth sciences leverage this large, multinational, accessible, sustainable community resource to improve science and applications related to earth science data? One example comes from Environment Canada which has imported metadata from 8,754 Meteorological Service of Canada stations into wikidata which is now queryable from the wikidata query service SPARQL endpoint (https://w.wiki/4LTi). Given that Wikidata represents a diverse, international data community whose work is built on semantic principles, it has the potential to enhance earth science data access for all people and provides inherent formal semantics, provenance and quality refinement mechanisms that enhance data usability, reliability and understanding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.063 |
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".