Feasibility of Open Access Publishing for Journals Funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This paper reports on the results of a feasibility study on open access publishing for humanities and social sciences journals supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada's (SSHRC) Aid to Scholarly and Transfer Journals Program. The study is part of a broader effort of the SSHRC to better understand the landscape of Open Access and how best to implement this principle into the current research programs funded by SSHRC. As such, the study was designed to assist SSHRC in making policy and program decisions regarding its Aid to Scholarly Journals Program. In particular, this study focused on the current publishing practices of SSHRC funded journals, with the ultimate goal of understanding the financial implications for these journals if they were to provide open access to the journal content. The more immediate goal of the study was to gain better knowledge of the general level of understanding among journal publishers and editors on the impact of open access and on their scholarly societies' publishing program.</p>
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 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 | 0.376 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.106 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".