Redesigning Scholarly Communications Workflows and Work Habits for the Digital Age: The Greenhouse Studios Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse Studios | Scholarly Communications Design at UConn is a shared venture of the School of Fine Arts, UConn Library, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Backed by long-term university investments of staff and space, Greenhouse Studios aims to institute on its university’s campus, and share with others involved in academic publishing, a workflow and work culture suited to the creation of multimodal scholarly communications. This article summarizes the research, undertaken with support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, that informed the development of a design-based, inquiry-driven, collaboration-first model of scholarly production that places continuous, close, and equitable scholarly communications labour at the heart of its mission. The model draws together divided workflows and flattens counter-productive hierarchies that, as vestiges of print-only traditions, impede fuller realization of the possibilities offered by the diverse range of digital and hybrid forms that increasingly define the publishing landscape.
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 | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".