Open Access in Physics and Chemistry, or, A Tale of Two Disciplines
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
There are disciplinary differences in awareness of, and\napproaches to, open access and other types of "openness". It is\nlikely that there are no great differences than the differences\nbetween physics and chemistry. Physics, as a discipline, has long\nbeen the leader in open access archiving, beginning in 1991 with the\nestablishment of arXiv, and continuing with the CERN Documents\nServer. In physics, open access is mainstream, with open access\narchiving peacefully coexisting with traditional publishing. Physics\nis currently leading a push towards full open access publishing.\nChemistry, in contrast, has had very low rates of self-archiving of\npeer-reviewed journal articles, and traditional publishers, until\nrecently, were fighting open access. However, a slightly different\npicture emerges when we consider the broader concept of "openness",\nas chemistry appears to be emerging as a leader in open data and open\nsource science.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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