MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948531562 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10014991

Software Metadata Recommended Format Guide

2023· report· en· W6948531562 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataSoftwareContext (archaeology)Data elementGeospatial metadataMeta Data ServicesMetadata repository

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Software Metadata Recommended Format Guide (SMRF) summarizes and defines the metadata elements recommended by the Software Preservation Network to describe software materials in the context of a wide range of collections. It aims to be adaptable, so that it can be used in different contexts and systems across libraries, museums, archives, and repositories. It is not meant to be exhaustive but provides a framework for cultural institutions and collections to define which metadata to capture for their own collections. This is the second version of this document. Version 1.0 was published in February 2022.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1110.060

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.036 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207