MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610725678 · doi:10.29173/cais911

Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: A Correlation Study of Journals Using Article Processing Charges

2016· article· fr· W2610725678 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonsPublishingLibrary sciencePresentation (obstetrics)HumanitiesPolitical scienceComputer scienceArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, funded throughSSHRC's Insight Development Program aims totransition scholarly publishing from subscriptions /purchase to open access. This presentation focuseson a correlational study of DOAJ journals, exploringrelationships between tendency to charge articleprocessing charges, subjects and number of articles.Le Soutien au patrimoine de connaissances, financépar le Programme de développement Savoir du CRSHvise à faire passer l’édition savante du mode parabonnement ou par achat au mode libre accès. Cetteprésentation se concentre sur une étude decorrélation de revues disponibles en libre accès(DOAJ), en explorant les relations entre la tendance àfacturer des frais de traitement pour un article, lessujets et le nombre d’articles.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.021
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.236 · 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