MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102365738 · doi:10.29173/cais1144

Perspectives on Academic Publishing: Can we Find Common Ground?

2020· article· en· W3102365738 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)PublishingHumanitiesPolitical sciencePoint (geometry)Dimension (graph theory)Computer scienceLibrary scienceSociologyManagementPhilosophyMathematicsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, the cost of electronic journals has continually grown to the point that many academic libraries today find it financially unsustainable. This has made it necessary for librarians to begin cancelling major journal subscription packages, known colloquially as big deal packages. The cancellation of big deal packages is complex, and at present, poorly understood practice revolving around the analysis of a range of quantitative and qualitative data. Moreover, it also has a distinct micro-political dimension as it involves reconciling the, at times, conflicting interests of faculty, students, librarians, and publishers. This panel seeks to initiate a dialogue between a diverse group of stakeholders with interests in this issue. It is expected that this dialogue will increase awareness of the complexity involved in managing the size, scope, and cost of big deal subscription packages and will give voice to multiple perspectives on the issue. As such, it is hoped that the panel will contribute to finding common ground from which we can collectively begin thinking about how the symbiotic relationship between academic libraries and publishers can be reinvented. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, le coût des revues électroniques n'a cessé d'augmenter au point que de nombreuses bibliothèques universitaires se trouvent aujourd'hui dans une situtation insoutenable. Cela a obligé les bibliothécaires à annuler les abonnements aux grands ensembles offert par les plus importants éditeurs commerciaux. L'annulation des grands ensembles de revues est une pratique complexe et, à l'heure actuelle, mal comprise, qui nécessite l'analyse de données quantitatives et qualitatives diverses. De plus, ces désabonnements ont une dimension micropolitique distincte car ils impliquent de concilier les intérêts parfois conflictuels des professeurs, des étudiants, des bibliothécaires et des éditeurs. Ce panel vise à initier un dialogue entre diverses parties prenantes de cette question. Il est attendu que ce dialogue suscitera une prise de conscience de la complexité la gestion de la taille, de la portée et du coût des grands ensemble et donnera la parole à de multiples perspectives sur cette question. Nous espérons que le panel contribuera à trouver un terrain d'entente à partir duquel nous pourrons collectivement commencer à réfléchir à la manière dont la relation symbiotique entre les bibliothèques universitaires et les éditeurs peut être réinventée.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0090.029
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.198 · 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