MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968736040 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8341520

Vancouver Statement on Collections as Data

2023· article· en· W6968736040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)Context (archaeology)Stewardship (theology)Product (mathematics)Knowledge translationThe InternetState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arabic translation Spanish translation French translation Since the Santa Barbara Statement on Collections as Data (2017) was published, engagement with collections-as-data has grown internationally. Institutions large and small, individually and collectively, have invested in developing, providing access to, and supporting responsible computational use of collections as data. An updated statement was needed in light of increased community implementation of collections as data in context of an ever more complex data landscape. The Vancouver Statement suggests a set of principles for thinking through questions that collections-as-data work produces, as part of an expanding global, interprofessional, and interdisciplinary effort to empower memory, knowledge, and data stewards (e.g., practitioners and scholars) who aim to support responsible development and computational use of collections as data. This stewardship role only grows in importance as artificial intelligence applications, trained on vast amounts of data, including collections as data, impact our lives ever more pervasively. The Vancouver Statement is the product of diverse contributions from the participants of the working event, Collections as Data: State of the Field and Future Directions, held April 25-26, 2023 at Internet Archive Canada in addition to asynchronous community feedback. Professional translation of the Vancouver Statement was provided by Transolution. Special thanks go to Gimena del Rio Riande and Gaëlle Béquet for additional review of statement translations.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0190.007
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.082

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207