MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913152973 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32010

ONLINE ACCESS TO RESEARCH PAPERS – CHANGES OVER TIME

2018· article· en· W2913152973 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julie Burke, Goeran Fiedler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPublic relationsScholarly communicationInternet privacyPolitical scienceBusinessData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.008

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 head0.752
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207