The concentration of journal use in Canadian universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an analysis of scholarly journal usage in 22 Canadian universities, sponsored by the Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN). Usage is assessed using citation data, usage data (downloads), as well as survey data. The results show a high concentration of journal usage in Canadian universities and a moderate correlation between the indicators used. We also find a significant overlap between the overall and “core” journal collections of universities.Cet article présente les résultats d'une analyse de l'utilisation des revues savantes dans 22 universités canadiennes, soutenue par le Réseau canadien de documentation pour la recherche (RCDR). L'utilisation est évaluée en utilisant des données de citation, des données d'utilisation (téléchargements), ainsi que des données d'enquête. Les résultats montrent une forte concentration de l'utilisation des revues dans les universités canadiennes et une corrélation modérée entre les indicateurs utilisés. Nous constatons également un chevauchement important entre les collections de revues globales et «de base» entre les universités.
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 | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.071 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".