Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research is increasingly being conducted by multi-stakeholder teams which include the researchers themselves, funding authorities, industry collaborators and community stakeholders inside and outside universities, all of whom have dynamic requirements relating to research data, research artefacts and products, and published outcomes. While the physical location of electronic research resources is of decreasing importance, control and ownership, as reflected in intellectual property policies and ethical requirements, have become highly contested within several communities. Such issues become even more complex when dealing with emergent participatory modes of e-Research, which influence: Empowerment of participants in the research. Recognition of different ways of researching. Institutional commitment to the long-term maintenance of a research repository. Adaptive research teams which are comfortable with electronic interactions. New legal ownership and access rights, and terms and conditions of use. This paper deliberately focuses on the challenging area of participatory e-Research in order to surface the widest possible range of issues. It is designed to explore governance frameworks that can be applied in new e-Community contexts, and to identify the user needs of participants. It forms part of a new paradigm, which stresses the importance of facilitating participation, by addressing issues which arise about the new management principles required for the authenticity, accessibility, disposition and preservation of electronic research resources for multiple purposes. The prime focus of the paper will be an investigation as to how well repositories and archival services, as they are presently constituted, meet the needs of communities. It will discuss issues including: empowerment, research frameworks, design and methods; and how to conduct ethical research with communities, including protocols, intellectual property, ownership of research data and of outcomes.
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 | 0.030 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".