MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966448412 · doi:10.3886/e195081v1

CoronaNet COVID-19 Policy Responses: Taxonomy Maps and Data for Data Harmonization

2023· dataset· en· W6966448412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Council for Eurasian and East European Research
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)HarmonizationGovernment (linguistics)Raw dataData mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This deposit contains the taxonomy maps and data we used to translate data on COVID-19 government responses from 7 different datasets into taxonomy developed by the CoronaNet Research Project (CoronaNet; Cheng et al 2020). These taxonomy maps form the basis of our efforts to harmonize this data into the CoronaNet database. The following taxonomy maps are deposited in the 'Taxonomy' folder:ACAPS COVID-19 Government Measures - CoronaNet Taxonomy Map Canadian Data Set of COVID-19 Interventions from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) - CoronaNet Taxonomy Map COVID Analysis and Maping of Policies (COVID AMP) - CoronaNet Taxonomy Map Johns Hopkins Health Intervention Tracking for COVID-19 (HIT-COVID) - CoronaNet Taxonomy Map Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) - CoronaNet Taxonomy Map World Health Organisation Public Health and Safety Measures (WHO PHSM) - CoronaNet Taxonomy MapMeanwhile the 'Data' folder contains the raw and mapped data for each external dataset (i.e. ACAPS, CIHI, COVID AMP, HIT-COVID, OxCGRT and WHO PHSM) as well as the combined external data for Steps 1 and 3 of the data harmonization process described in Cheng et al (2023) 'Harmonizing Government Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.'

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.454
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.454
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0390.051
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.631
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.096 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207