MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discussing open access. The new publication and public exposure model as an open access version

2020· article· en· W3008821879 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific and Technical Libraries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsCanadian Bulletin of Medical History
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissionCourtesyPublishingLibrary sciencePanel discussionComputer scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article of mosaic structure comprises the materials of the panel discussion “Collaboration & community. The transition to open access” held by Copyright Clearance Center (USA) within the framework London Book Fair in April, 2018. These materials (arguments presented by four discussion participants, experts in scholarly publishing: a publisher of Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University librarian, expert of Royal Society of Chemistry, and Executive Director of Knowledge Unlatched, a crowdfunding platform), and the introduction speech by Christopher Kenneally, discussion moderator, were published on the discussion date and distributed to the participants. By courtesy of Christopher Kenneally and Alastair Horn in charge of the Academic Bulletin where the prematerials were first published, we are including the original English-language text, the translation and the author’s summary and arguments on expanding publication formats, e. g. outspreading of panel sessions at conferences. The article is aimed at two goals: to introduce readers to several issues of the open access system voiced at the discussion panel, and to analyze in detail the methods of audience communication (the technologies based on open access principles). The selection of materials, permission for translation into Russian (and the translation) as well as the permission for reprinting the original are accomplished by Andrey I. Zemskov, RNPLS&T leading researcher, who attended the discussion panel. He is also the author of the summary review on the new publication and public exposure model as an open access version.

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.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.3260.110
Open science0.0270.037
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.175 · 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