MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022925610 · doi:10.1087/095315103321505647

Voluntary deposit of electronic publications: a learning experience

2003· article· en· W2022925610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearned Publishing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsJ. D. Irving (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseLegislationPublishingElectronic publishingLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceBusinessLawThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT During the second half of 2002, Electronic Publishing Services (EPS) carried out a study on the likely cost impact of extending legal deposit to non‐print publications. This article is not a summary of the report, which is publicly accessible on the Web, but focuses on a number of interesting phenomena and issues that EPS encountered in the course of the study. Statistics collected confirm the rise of email for serials and the demise of CD‐ROM, yet original material in e‐book format remains scarce. The voluntary deposit scheme for non‐print publications in the UK has been a successful experiment, though not necessarily exactly as originally planned. New legislation may be enacted in 2003.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.203 · 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