Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses some,of the problems of data access and exchange by discussing what an educational research institution should do about data archiving and data facilities. The work undertaken at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education is described. Generally, efforts in the past have been given to computerization of bibliographic information and to computerization of data analysis facilities. It is now time to turn to the problems of the research data resource itself--to data development, data archiving, and to computerization of data (and documentation) access and exchange. A first step is for research institutions, government agencies, university departments, and private centers to establish a local data archive and computing laboratory, dedicating as much attention to this as has been given to print collections and to analysis software. Institutions and contracting agencies should develop and adhere to reasonable guidelines about data preservation on the one hand, and data ownership on the cther. The computerization of data access and exchange between institutions requires good arrangements at each institution and standardized facilities for computer networks. Another need is for a centralized archive function. (Author/PN) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".