ArticleSocial studies of science2019
Metadata accounts: Achieving data and evidence in scientific research.
Article in Social studies of science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- What is the real value of omics data? Enhancing research outcomes and securing long-term data excellence.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Domesticating data: Traveling and value-making in the data economy.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Stakeholder engagement does not guarantee impact: A co-productionist perspective on model-based drought research.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Race and statistics in facial recognition: Producing types, physical attributes, and genealogies.Social studies of science · 2023Article
- Tabular strategies for metadata in ecology, evolution, and the environmental sciences.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Conceptualising fairness: three pillars for medical algorithms and health equity.BMJ health & care informatics · 2022Review
- Encoding Collective Knowledge, Instructing Data Reusers: The Collaborative Fixation of a Digital Scientific Data Set.Computer supported cooperative work : CSCW : an international journal · 2021Article
- Caring for data: Value creation in a data-intensive research laboratory.Social studies of science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
'Metadata' has received a fraction of the attention that 'data' has received in sociological studies of scientific research. A neglect of 'metadata' reduces the attention on a number of critical aspects of scientific work processes, including documentary work, accountability relations, and collaboration routines. Metadata processes and products are essential components of the work needed to practically accomplish day-to-day scientific research tasks, and are central to ensuring that research findings and products meet externally driven standards or requirements. This article is an attempt to open up the discussion on and conceptualization of metadata within the sociology of science and the sociology of data. It presents ethnographic research of metadata creation within everyday scientific practice, focusing on how researchers document, describe, annotate, organize and manage their data, both for their own use and the use of researchers outside of their project. In particular, this article argues that the role and significance of metadata within scientific research contexts are intimately tied to the nature of evidence and accountability within particular social situations. Studying metadata can (1) provide insight into the production of evidence, that is, how something we might call 'data' becomes able to serve an evidentiary role, and (2) provide a mechanism for revealing what people in research contexts are held
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.