MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912631357 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7785923

News from the GGOS DOI Working Group - Presentation slides

2023· article· en· W6912631357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeodetic datumIdentifierPresentation (obstetrics)Object (grammar)MetadataData presentationData sharingUnique identifier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “GGOS Working Group on Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for Geodetic Data Sets” is entering its third year of regular meetings and discussions to develop best practices, recommendations and advocate for improved global coordination for using DOI to geodetic data and products. The group was established by the International Association of Geodesy’s (IAG) Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS) and includes international representatives of IAG Services and geodetic data centres and associated members. Data publications with digital object identifiers (DOI) are best practice for FAIR sharing data. They are fully citable in scholarly literature and many journals require the data underlying a publication to be available. Initial metrics for data citation allows data providers to demonstrate the value of the data collected by institutes and individual scientists. This possibility to get credit for providing data products and running data services has been identified in the group as key requirement for the motivation to implement DOIs to geodetic data. Our group activities include the collection of data products and discussions on already existing and planned DOI activities for IAG services and geodetic data centres, including for recent projects, like FAIR GNSS. Whenever possible, we recommend that DOIs shall be included in standard data formats (e.g. Rinex) and cited when using the data. This presentation will give an update of the group activities. GGOS DOI Working Group: Detlef Angermann (TU Munich, Germany); Yehuda Bock (UCDC, US); Sylvain Bonvalot (GET, France); Roelf Botha (SARAO, South Africa); Markus Bradke (GFZ, Germany); Elizabeth Bradshaw (NOC, UK); Carine Bruyninx (ROB, Belgium); Daniela Carrion (Politecnico Milan, Italy); Glenda Coetzer (SARAO, South Africa); Kirsten Elger (GFZ, Germany, chair); Pierre Fridez (CODE/AIUB, Switzerland); Elmas Sinem Ince (GFZ, Germany); Philippe Lamothe (Geodetic Survey Canada); Anna Miglio (ROB), Vicente Navarro (ESA); Carey Noll (CDDIS/NASA, US); Mirko Reguzzoni (Politecnico Milan, Italy); Jim Riley (UNAVCO, US); Dan Roman (NGS, US); Laurent Soudarin (CLS, France); Daniela Thaller (BKG, Germany); Yusuke Yokota (GGOS Japan); Godfred Amponsah (NGS, US); Sandra Blevins (CDDIS/NASA, US); Francine Coloma (NOAA, US), Allison Craddock (JPL/NASA, US); Michael Craymer (Canadian Geodetic Networks, Canada); Theresa Damiani (NOAA, US), John Galetzka (NOAA, US), Ryan Hippenstiel (NOAA, US), Patrick Michael (CDDIS/NASA, US); Basara Miyahara (GGOS, Japan); Mike Pearlman (Harvard Smithsonian – Center for Astrophysics, US); Nacho Romero (ESA); Ira Sellars (NOAA, US) Christian Schwatke (TU Munich, Germany); Martin Sehnal (GGOS, BEV, Austria); Lori Tyahla (CDDIS/NASA, US)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.010

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.188 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207