MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106117459 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v39i3.477

Development of Disruptive Open Access Journals

2010· article· en· W2106117459 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicationAccreditationScholarly communicationPublic relationsScholarshipCitationHigher educationLibrary sciencePolitical sciencePublishingSociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open access (OA) publication has emerged, with disruptive effects, as a major outlet for scholarly publication. OA publication is usually associated with on-line distribution and provides access to scholarly publications to anyone, anywhere–regardless of their ability to pay subscription fees or their association with an educational institution. The article overviews the growth and impact of OA publication in Canada and elsewhere. The article also presents a case study of the evolution over its first nine years of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education (IRRODL). IRRODL has become the most widely read and widely cited journal in the distance education and open learning community, yet it continues to struggle for recognition by some academics, funding, and rating organizations.
 In this article IRRODL’s editors document the challenges involved in leading the charge for equal support for open access journals from Canada’s research funding organizations and for review and accreditation from commercial and non-commercial review services. In its literature review section the article looks at scholarly works documenting and comparing on-line journals to ones that publish in paper only, or in which access is restricted behind the walls of licensed use.
 
 The article also documents issues related to various innovations, including production of articles in both text and audio formats, and the challenges of incorporating more interactive media into a scholarly, peer- reviewed journal. Data is produced demonstrating the ways in which 72 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 3, 2009 influence and impact for open access journals can be measured, including hit rates and citations reference data from Google Scholar. The article concludes with a description and discussion of the advantages and challenges of using review and publication management tools such as Open Journal System in the production of open access journals.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.342 · 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