MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782213038 · doi:10.3138/jsp.49.2.260

Article Processing Charges Threaten Academic Libraries: A Librarian's Opinion

2018· article· en· W2782213038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alison MacEwen Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbandonment (legal)Library sciencePolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of gold open access funded by article processing charges (APCs) is to fulfill the altruistic and vitally important goal of achieving free access to scholarly publication. However, if financed by academic library collections budgets, APC-funded open access will ultimately result in the abandonment of fundamental values of academic libraries and librarianship. This opinion paper derives from remarks delivered at the 2016 Charleston Conference. The author was invited to participate in the annual Hyde Park Debate in which she argued that APC-funded open access is antithetical to the values of librarianship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.1330.379
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207