Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The <scp>MELIBEA</scp> score
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open‐access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the “strength” of open access ( OA ) mandates (registered in ROARMAP ). We analyzed total W eb of S cience‐( WoS )‐indexed publication output in years 2011–2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS ‐indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA “strength” score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt‐outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt‐out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt‐out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.304 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.082 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it