New frontiers in Open Access for Collection Development: Perspectives from Canadian research libraries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the push for open access (OA) burgeons around the globe, it is important to examine OA as it relates to collection development practices. Canada has its own particular set of \ncharacteristics and approaches to service delivery based on its history and context. Like our global colleagues, opportunities for collection development in Canada include the support of OA journals, repositories, monographs and electronic theses. The strengthening of OA in Canada is tied closely with other issues. Political and educational realities as well as geographic spread are affecting the way the movement is strengthening and impacting collection development practices. In this context, we share the results of a study examining the scholarly communication landscape in Canadian research libraries. The results of interviews with librarians, who are leaders in scholarly communication activities at their own institutions, showcase the prominent role OA plays in enhancing collections at Canadian institutions. Collaboration and the role of cooperative collection development are covered. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening access to open scholarship in libraries regardless of their geographic location.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it