MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002849679 · doi:10.1087/0953151053585019

Open access — the impact of legislative developments

2005· article· en· W2002849679 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mary Waltham

Bibliographic record

VenueLearned Publishing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftResearch Councils UKWellcome TrustSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLegislatureStakeholderPolitical sciencePeriod (music)Regional sciencePublic administrationBusinessPublic relationsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT An account is given of the development of the idea of open access for the results of STM research over the period 1999–2005 with particular attention to PubMed Central and to the initiatives of the legislatures in the US and UK in 2004. Stakeholder responses to open access are briefly reviewed and possible future developments are outlined.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0190.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.840
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearned PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207