Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK in June 2012, the Finch Group published its report “Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications.” The Finch Group, with representatives from scholarly publishing and UK academia, agreed that the broad open access is the way of the future and that the preferred path is gold open access. On 16 July 2012, the Research Councils UK unveiled its new open access policy informed by the work of the Finch Group. The policy mandates that research outputs must be published in journals that are compliant with Research Council policy on open access and must use the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY), when an Article Processing Charge (APC) is levied. The Research Council also announced it would provide block grants to eligible UK Higher Education Institutions, support payment of the APCs associated with pay-to-publish. This paper outlines what this means for the UK library consortium in supporting it members in terms of containing ongoing cost of gold open access while maintaining journal subscriptions and in the practical issues of implementing the Research Councils policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".