The access principle: The case for open access to research
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch, Bibliometrics, Open science
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: Not applicable
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.222
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.998
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.171 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.140 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.122 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.038 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
This presentation will review the various approaches currently being used to increase global access to research and scholarship, whether through open access institutional repositories or through open access journals. It will cover the epistemological, legal, economic, technical and self‐interest arguments that underline the current movement for “open access,” which are transforming scholarly publishing. In reviewing the case for open access, the author will draw on current examples of open access from accross the disciplines, as well as on the authors’ own experiences with Public Knowledge Project, which is conducting researching on PubMed and open access, as well as developing Open Journal Systems, an open source solution for online journal management and publishing that is being used by open accss journals around the world.
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.
The record
- Venue
- The FASEB Journal
- Topic
- scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- University of British Columbia
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- ScholarshipPresentation (obstetrics)PublishingOpen access publishingOpen scienceOpen access journalFree accessPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebPublic accessOpen dataScholarly communicationComputer sciencePublic relationsLawMedicineMEDLINE
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes