MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171257228 · doi:10.22230/src.2013v4n2a86

Availability and Accessibility of Research Outputs in NARS: A case study with IARI

2013· article· en· W2171257228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gitanjali Tandon, Lalitha Poluru, Sridhar Gutam, Anurag Mishra, H. Chandrasekharan, Priyanka Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureWork (physics)New delhiOpen access journalPolitical scienceLibrary sciencePublic relationsBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineGeographyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the trends in publication, authorship pattern, availability, and accessibility of articles during 2008–2010 from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), a constituent of the National Agricultural Research System in India. The data reveal that during the period of study, researchers from IARI produced 1,833 publications, most of which were jointly authored, and that the most preferred journal for publication by researchers is the Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, which is now an Open Access journal. While publications from IARI are available to subscribers of the Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA), public availability to IARI publications is very meager. Hence, in order to make their research output more accessible and available to a wider audience, IARI researchers should deposit their work in IARI’s Open Access repository Eprints@IARI. However, making such a deposit requires an Open Access policy, which IARI is yet to adopt.

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 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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0290.093
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.721
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.078 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207