MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133688059 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18882096

How to write a data availability statement: A brief guide

2025· article· W7133688059 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin B. Read

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData accessKey (lock)Information accessInformation systemData collectionTable (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guide provides information on how to write detailed data availability statements (DAS) in preprints and journal articles. DAS are used to communicate if data is available, where they are stored, how access is evaluated/granted, and if data is not available, why access is restricted. The guide applies to researchers who are depositing data publicly, or those who have restricted data that can only be made available under certain conditions.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0550.018
Open science0.0460.042
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207