MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024749332

STEVE MARKS, Module 8: Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository

2017· article· en· W7024749332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)The InternetWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steve Marks has accomplished something that very few people in the world have: he created a Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) that met the criteria of the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC).It was the first repository in Canada, and one of only six in the world.Because of the significance of this task, this publication is important to consider: the author went beyond theorizing how a TDR could be created and actually achieved it.Marks undertook this task when he was the digital preservation librarian at the Toronto-based Scholars Portal, a service of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL): the Scholars Portal e-journals database TDR passed the very stringent Centre for Research Libraries (CRL) audit and obtained the rare certification in February 2013. 1 To pass the audit and be granted certification, a TDR must demonstrate compliance with the TRAC criteria and the strict

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.014
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207