Open for Collaboration : is it time for Canada to implement a unified open strategy for higher education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embedded within the vision of post-secondary institutions across British Columbia are the values of contributing to knowledge across disciplines and sharing the results of research with the local and global communities. Spurred by the need to make higher education accessible to all, the open movement has gained ground as the Internet evolved to enable easy sharing of different forms of media. However, while the notion of “open” in higher education has been growing in British Columbia, the default scholarly approach is still closed. It is time for the scholarly conversation to shift from why open, to why not open? This event will feature discussion about collaboration within the open movement and role of openness in higher education in British Columbia and examine: • if and why BC’s universities and colleges should embrace open practices • what impact open access and the reuse of educational materials would have on the cost and efficacy of higher education • what role the governments of Canada and British Columbia should play in opening higher education
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".