MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965421437 · doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2006.12.002

Perspectives on Access to Electronic Journals for Long-Term Preservation

2007· article· en· W1965421437 on OpenAlexaff
Eun G. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueSerials Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree accessTerm (time)Access to informationInternet privacyElectronic journalComputer scienceDigital preservationBusinessInformation accessWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes three terms – open access, consortial access, and perpetual access – related to providing access to electronic journals and raises issues relevant to preservation. These access options have clearly had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the publication and dissemination of electronic journals as librarians and authors seek ways to promote, manage and preserve scholarly research.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.027
Scholarly communication0.0370.041
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSerials ReviewSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207