MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931487758 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7738213

World Data System and Canadian CoreTrustSeal Cohort Members Needs Assessment - Reviewer Instrument and Supplemental Information

2023· other· en· W6931487758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationCertificationCohortAllianceStrategic planningQualitative propertyTest (biology)Data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From July 2022 to December 2022, the World Data System (WDS) International Technology (ITO) and International Program (IPO) Offices conducted a review of strategic plans and technical roadmaps of all current WDS members and the set of Canadian repositories that participated in the Digital Research Alliance of Canada's CoreTrustSeal Certification Support and Funding Pilot (Digital Research Alliance of Canada, 2022). The purpose of this review was to test out a new organizational assessment method designed to identify needs and challenges faced by the WDS and Canadian CoreTrustSeal (CTS) Cohort members. Additionally, incorporated into this assessment were criteria from the Global Biodata Coalition (GBC), which is an initiative created to support funders by identifying and prioritizing fundamental data resources. This report serves as a supplemental file to the primary assessment, tentatively titled “Research Analysis: A World Data System and Canadian CoreTrustSeal Cohort Needs Assessment,” which will be published at a later date. This report includes the reviewer instrument, a list of criteria used when reviewing strategic plans, technical roadmaps, and additional types of documentation by the WDS research team. Included are all 98 questions that comprised the reviewer instrument, including qualitative and quantitative questions designed to capture as much information as possible about the reviewed organization. Additionally, this report provides the Global Biodata Coalition (GBC) Indicators that were used in conjunction with additional prioritized criteria to create the reviewer instrument. Finally, incorporated into this report is a list of specific standards, policies, and practices mentioned and utilized by the reviewed WDS and Canadian CoreTrustSeal Cohort members. The primary intention behind this list is to demonstrate the varying standards and protocols used by the organizations included in this assessment. While also reflecting the type and variety of information the World Data System was able to glean from the review of strategic plans and technical roadmaps utilizing this organizational assessment method. World Data System International Program Office (WDS-IPO) is hosted by the University of Tennessee at the University of Tennessee Oak Ridge Innovation Institute. This work is supported by a cooperative agreement (DE-SC0021915) with the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.208
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.208
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1210.034

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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 topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→