New frontiers in Open Access for Collection Development: Perspectives from Canadian research libraries
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 characteristics 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.
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 | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.093 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.053 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".