MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334331993 · doi:10.1177/0968533212441887

Commercialization versus open science: Making sense of the message(s) in the bottle

2012· article· en· W2334331993 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Law International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationDisseminationPublic relationsSociologyEngineering ethicsOpen sciencePolitical scienceBusinessMarketingEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. For example, increasing pressure to commercialise (academic) research is paralleled by pressure to collaborate, share data, and disseminate knowledge quickly so as to encourage scientific progress, maximise research impact, and meet humanitarian goals. This article briefly explores some of the relevant instructions in Canada and the United Kingdom and concludes that commercialisation and more open collaborative practices are not necessarily irreconcilable. They should be viewed as complementary elements of an innovation framework for which more evidence must be gathered with respect to the impact of this coexistence.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.310 · 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