MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950490284 · doi:10.5683/sp3/yc6zqj

Research Data Management Survey at Concordia

2013· dataset· en· W6950490284 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2013
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData managementAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Research dataData archiveData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In anticipation of potential changes to funder requirements, how can Canadian academic libraries support researchers in research data management? Is it, as Wareen Kinsella imagined "if you build it they will come?" or is it one more thing added to faculty workload? Carla Graebner and Alex Guindon will discuss research data management initiatives at their two universities. Alex will discuss the results of an online survey of Concordia faculty on data management and Carla will talk about the progress of the SFU library's proof of concept Research Data Repository.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.022

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreDataset

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→French-language works237,207→