SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Mingfang Wu

Publications and source records attributed to Mingfang Wu.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Utilising a Large Language Model to Annotate Subject Metadata: A Case Study in an Australian National Research Data Catalogue

In support of open and reproducible research, there has been a rapidly increasing number of datasets made available for research. As the availability of datasets increases, it becomes more important to have quality metadata for discovering and reusing them. Yet, it is a common issue that datasets often lack quality metadata due to limited resources for data curation. Meanwhile, technologies such as artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) are progressing rapidly. Recently, systems based on these technologies, such as ChatGPT, have demonstrated promising capabilities for certain data curation tasks. This paper proposes to leverage LLMs for cost-effective annotation of subject metadata through the LLM-based in-context learning. Our method employs GPT-3.5 with prompts designed for annotating subject metadata, demonstrating promising performance in automatic metadata annotation. However, models based on in-context learning cannot acquire discipline-specific rules, resulting in lower performance in several categories. This limitation arises from the limited contextual information available for subject inference. To the best of our knowledge, we are introducing, for the first time, an in-context learning method that harnesses large language models for automated subject metadata annotation.

cs.CL

Nine Best Practices for Research Software Registries and Repositories: A Concise Guide

Scientific software registries and repositories serve various roles in their respective disciplines. These resources improve software discoverability and research transparency, provide information for software citations, and foster preservation of computational methods that might otherwise be lost over time, thereby supporting research reproducibility and replicability. However, developing these resources takes effort, and few guidelines are available to help prospective creators of registries and repositories. To address this need, we present a set of nine best practices that can help managers define the scope, practices, and rules that govern individual registries and repositories. These best practices were distilled from the experiences of the creators of existing resources, convened by a Task Force of the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group during the years 2019-2020. We believe that putting in place specific policies such as those presented here will help scientific software registries and repositories better serve their users and their disciplines.

cs.DL

Software Citation Implementation Challenges

The main output of the FORCE11 Software Citation working group (https://www.force11.org/group/software-citation-working-group) was a paper on software citation principles (https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86) published in September 2016. This paper laid out a set of six high-level principles for software citation (importance, credit and attribution, unique identification, persistence, accessibility, and specificity) and discussed how they could be used to implement software citation in the scholarly community. In a series of talks and other activities, we have promoted software citation using these increasingly accepted principles. At the time the initial paper was published, we also provided guidance and examples on how to make software citable, though we now realize there are unresolved problems with that guidance. The purpose of this document is to provide an explanation of current issues impacting scholarly attribution of research software, organize updated implementation guidance, and identify where best practices and solutions are still needed.

cs.CY

Combining Structured Corporate Data and Document Content to Improve Expertise Finding

In this paper, we present an algorithm for automatically building expertise evidence for finding experts within an organization by combining structured corporate information with different content. We also describe our test data collection and our evaluation method. Evaluation of the algorithm shows that using organizational structure leads to a significant improvement in the precision of finding an expert. Furthermore we evaluate the impact of using different data sources on the quality of the results and conclude that Expert Finding is not a "one engine fits all" solution. It requires an analysis of the information space into which a solution will be placed and the appropriate selection and weighting scheme of the data sources.

cs.IR