MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513984212 · doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/3/25

Debating the future of physics publishing

2007· article· en· W2513984212 on OpenAlexaff
J. Harnad, R. J. Reeves, Basil Polychronopulos, John Chubb

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics World · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingNothingComputer scienceLibrary scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical sciencePhysicsEpistemologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In reference to your debate on the future of open access (OA) publishing (January pp22–23) it is important to distinguish between two different approaches, sometimes called "gold" OA and "green" OA. In the former a journal charges nothing for reader access, at least to its electronic version, while in the latter the journal charges for subscriptions but allows authors to deposit copies of their papers in freely accessible archives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0330.055
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0230.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.490
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.051 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics WorldSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207