Study on Perspectives Regarding Deposit on Open Access Repositories in the Context of Public Universities in the Central-Eastern Region of Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a survey and qualitative study of needs and practices of open access scholarly works dissemination.The survey and study focused on different issues related to usability, navigation, and accessibility of institutional repositories, which have guided the design of an experimental prototype in the context of a regional project that joins three universities in Argentina. In such academic practices, the teaching community offers various types of production and simultaneous application areas for digital objects. Thus, there is a technological requirement to enable users to carry out their self-archiving process of different objects, in a user-friendly way, allowing them to upload these objects in various collections. A prototype was implemented and tested in order to obtain an initial assessment of the proposed model.L’article présente les résultats d’un sondage et d’un diagnostic qualitative sur les besoins et les pratiques de publication en accès libre. Il fait le point sur différents problèmes d’utilisabilité, de navigation et d’accessibilité rencontrés dans les archives institutionnels qui ont motivé la conception d’un prototype expérimental dans le cadre d’un projet regroupant trois universités en Argentine. Dans ces pratiques académiques, la communauté d’enseignants propose des types de production diverses et des champs d’application simultanés pour un même objet numérique. Il y a donc un besoin technologique pour l’enseignant-chercheur d’auto-archivage et de description de son objet numérique à travers une interface conviviale qui prenne en charge les champs d’application simultanés. La mise en place et le test du prototype permettront unepremière évaluation du modèle proposé.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".