MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592292362 · doi:10.11575/prism/34715

A Leading-Edge Position Statement on Open Access + Ongoing Interest in OA at CLA

2008· article· en· W1592292362 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Waller, Heather Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueE-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementTask (project management)Statement (logic)Task forcePosition (finance)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringMedicinePublic administrationLawFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Library Association Task Force on Open Access operated from 2006 until mid-2008. This article summarizes the actions of the group which included developing an Open Access for CLA's publications and producing a Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian libraries. Though the Task Force will be disbanding, plans are in place for the creation of an Open Access Interest Group within CLA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.008
Scholarly communication0.0200.006
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0200.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.016

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II)Same topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207