Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The successful implementation of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) depends significantly on practitioners’ access to relevant research articles. It has been argued that the time consuming nature of EBP is a major detriment to its acceptance and widespread use,1 and the logistical difficulties, like having to retrieve research publications of interest from the local university library, are likely to exacerbate this issue. In recognizing the associated adverse effects that this problem could present for knowledge generation and dissemination, the idea to make all research findings publicly available online led to the conception of the world wide web in the early 1990s.2 However, many scientific journals that are slow to abandon their subscription-based business models hide their online content behind paywalls, charging article fees that are usually in the range between $20 and $40. Acknowledging the barriers to EBP that these fees can impose, we have previously compared different strategies for prosthetists and orthotists to maximize their free online access to relevant research literature. The respective data collection in the Spring of 2017 resulted in the finding that approximately 40% of search results in Google Scholar linked to freely available full papers, whereas the remaining 60% links offered only the abstract, but not the full paper, free-of-charge.3 In light of the ever progressing efforts to improve public availability of research, such as the open-access publishing movement or the respective requirements mandated by research funding agencies, we hypothesized that the ratio of freely available online articles is increasing over time, and we repeated our data collection one year after the initial study. Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32010/24429 How to cite: Burke J, Fiedler G. ONLINE ACCESS TO RESEARCH PAPERS – CHANGES OVER TIME. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018, ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee. http://www.aopanet.org/
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 | 0.028 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.010 |
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".