Developing an Interactive Data Deposit Decision Tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of resources exist that guide researchers to select an appropriate repository in which to deposit their research data. Most focus repository selection through a specific lens, such as funder requirements, FAIR principles, or sensitive data. This project represents an attempt to develop one interactive tool that lets user needs determine the best path. Three objectives guided us: (1) our Decision Tree needed to account for institutional and national contexts, including funder requirements, legal and ethical frameworks, and institutional practices; (2) we wanted to help researchers make informed decisions about depositing their data and cultivate a deeper understanding of the many factors that might impact their choice; and (3) we wanted to develop a flexible and interactive tool that responds to researchers’ varying priorities and motivations. Our Decision Tree simultaneously helps researchers make the right data repository selection, introduces users to the research data landscape, and streamlines consultation processes and library workflows.
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 | 0.033 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".