Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The vast opportunities that digital realities present in cultural and information industries have not been fully embraced by Canadian scholarly journal publishing and attendant policy. Analysis In Canada, the journal support programs that currently exist are minimal, dated, and do not encourage the development of a vibrant publishing sub-sector. A review of the evolution of Canadian government programs for book and magazine publishing underlines the achievements of government support for these sectors and the benefits they bring to Canada. Conclusion and implications Parallel support focused on emerging digital prospects in journal publishing, rather than editing and accessibility, would help pave the way for increased Canadian development in the quickly expanding knowledge economy. Contexte L’édition de revues savantes au Canada et les politiques qui s’y rattachent n’ont pas entièrement profité des grandes occasions que représentent les réalités numériques des industries de la culture et de l’information. Analyse Au Canada, les programmes actuels d’appui aux revues sont rudimentaires et périmés. Ils n’encouragent pas le développement d’un sous-secteur dynamique dans le monde de l’édition. Un recensement de l’évolution des programmes du gouvernement canadien pour l’édition de livres et de magazines souligne cependant les accomplissements de l’appui gouvernemental pour ces secteurs et les bénéfices que cet appui apporte au Canada. Conclusion et implications Plutôt qu’un appui axé sur la révision ou l’accès, c’est unappui parallèle portant sur les nouvelles possibilités numériques de l’édition des revuessavantes qui accroîtrait au Canada le développement de l’économie du savoir en pleineexpansion. Mots clés Édition de revues; Politiques concernant l’édition; Libre accès; Économie dusavoir; Édition numérique; Amélioration de l’humanité; Croissance zéro
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.014 |
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".