The future of institutional repositories: The experts (and audience) debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract “Every university in the world can and should have its own open‐access, OAI‐compliant repository…” Suber 2006 Panel goals: Panel members, each of whom brings different expert knowledge about institutional repositories (IR), will take turns answering a set of provocative questions about the future of IR and challenges inherent in ongoing management of IR. Panelists will also be given an opportunity to respond to each others' comments and audience members will also contribute questions to the discussion. The debate style format will give audience members a rich understanding of the challenges related to IR The IR experts on this panel will debate the future of IR in academic institutions globally. Specific questions the moderator will pose to the panelists may include the following: How will IRs come to vary across in 10 years in terms of presence or absence, but also in terms of the types of materials collected? (e.g., preprints versus local digital collections)? What will the relationship between university libraries and disciplinary IRs be in 10 years? What will be the relationship between IR and scholarly societies, especially those which publish journals? Under what circumstances will consortial or outsourced efforts become popular? Under what circumstances should we expect increases in deposit activity among researchers and faculty? Under what circumstances will IRs change the status of developing nation scholars and the typical flows of scholarly communications? How would our investments in IR be assessed? From an economic/financial perspective? From a status perspective? From the promotion and tenure perspective? From an open access perspective? How will IR be funded in the long term? Questions from the audience will be welcomed.
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 | 0.161 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.055 | 0.093 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".