Comparability in the public olfactory record: volatile measurement, human perception, and the join between them

Abstract

Research data infrastructure measures metadata completeness, the share of fields populated. This is the wrong quantity: a populated field is not a joinable field. We measure comparability instead: whether two records can be used together, and for what. Working from 180,877 records across eight public sources, we adapt measurement invariance from psychometrics into a four-rung ladder, each rung established by its own test and licensing one specific comparison. Over all 167,331 pairs of gas chromatography analyses in a public metabolomics repository, 100% reach the bottom rung, 58.85% the second, 0.072% the third, and exactly two pairs reach the rung that licenses comparing values directly, an upper bound under a generous test. The deficit is recoverable: the missing values survive in prose. We formalise crosswalking as five operations ordered by reliability, each with a characteristic failure mode. The temperature programme that determines retention is structured in none of a second repository's 355 gas chromatography studies yet written in prose in 78.6%; we recover 206 ordered programmes comprising 529 steps, audited over three rounds. The perceptual record fails differently: its datasets do not share a language. Among eight that declare they measure odour character in humans, 42.9% of pairs share no descriptor, and two studies rating the same molecules with the same word agree at mean correlation 0.31. Joining volatility measurement to human percept across the entire public record yields 132 molecules. Across seismology, meteorology, metrology and chemistry, a field is populated when the primary consumer cannot complete the primary task without it: the same optional, unvalidated field sits at 100% in one discipline and near zero in another. Resources should publish a conformance ledger, reporting what is missing as a tracked quantity; we release one, with 48,356 triples.