MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484593751 · doi:10.22230/src.2014v5n4a180

A Good Idea, a Difficult Reality: Toward a Publisher/Library Open Access Partnership

2014· article· en· W1484593751 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rowland Lorimer

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSocioeconomic and Demographic Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)General partnershipPublishingComputer scienceKey (lock)World Wide WebMaximizationRevenueKnowledge managementPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In principle, open access is accepted by all of academe. In practice, the lack of understanding on the part of scholars and librarians of the value that publishers add, which leads to the belief that content is the main determinant of value and usage, stands in the way of implementation. To maximize the value of research in an exploding, information-rich environment by commanding the attention of key users, publishers require sufficient revenue to add value in all publishing functions, from professional editing and layout through to strategic marketing and planning. Value maximization also requires research into review and acceptance dynamics and the nature of accessing and using published research.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicSocioeconomic and Demographic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207