MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950575460 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8209833

Converging on a Semantic Interoperability Framework for the European Data Space for Science, Research and Innovation (EOSC)

2023· article· en· W6950575460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsInteroperabilityMetadataSemantic interoperabilityContext (archaeology)Linked dataTask (project management)OntologySpace (punctuation)Open data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation is based on the paper "Converging on a Semantic Interoperability Framework for the European Data Space for Science, Research and Innovation (EOSC)" and passed at the 2nd Workshop on Ontologies for FAIR and FAIR Ontologies (Onto4FAIR), July 17-19, 2023 Sherbrooke, Québec Abstract Paper: Semantic interoperability (SI) is at the heart of the FAIR principles and the design of large-scale cross-disciplinary infrastructures. The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) is a European-wide effort towards such an infrastructure, aiming to deepen regional research collaboration and realising a shared data space for science, research and innovation. In this context, the research community’s voice is represented by the EOSC Association (EOSC-A) and a number of advisory groups with a broad range of representatives from different stakeholder organisations. The advisory group on metadata and data quality has formed a task force focusing on developing and implementing recommendations for SI (EOSC SI Task Force) to converge on globally relevant and scalable SI solutions for EOSC. This paper provides context to SI in EOSC, the various components contributing to it, as well as some views on the socio-technical challenges to arriving at a consensus. In particular, the paper provides motivation for exploring the heterogeneity of SI solutions demonstrated across scientific communities and insight into the task force’s planned approach to conducting a survey to identify relevant components and structures. The paper is also an invitation to the global community to align and engage with the task force’s activities going forward.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0220.031
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207