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 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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.318
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.318
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3570.380

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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