MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3167691387 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2519

The Seismica initiative: a community-led Diamond Open Access journal for seismological research

2021· article· en· W3167691387 on OpenAlexaff
Martijn van den Ende, Lucile Bruhat, G. J. Funning, Alice‐Agnes Gabriel, Stephen Hicks, Romain Jolivet, Thomas Lecocq, C. D. Rowe, The Seismological Community

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicationLicensePublishingPolitical scienceLibrary sciencePublic relationsMedicineLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 24 November 2020, the Springer Nature publishing group announced the introduction of Open Access (OA) journals in Nature and its sibling journals. The corresponding OA publication fee (charged directly to the authors) was set to €9,500/$11,390/£8,290, an amount that may be well out of reach for researchers with limited financial means. This is especially a problem for researchers in developing countries, and for early-career researchers on small, personal fellowships. Funding agencies often demand that research be published under an OA license, forcing authors to accept the high publication fees. The high cost of these and similar OA fees for other Earth science journals prompted a discussion among the seismological community on Twitter, during which the idea was raised to start a free-to-publish, free-to-read journal for seismological research. The concept of Diamond Open Access was previously adopted by Volcanica (www.jvolcanica.org) for volcanological research, providing a precedent and directives for similar initiatives (like Seismica, but also Tektonika for the structural geology community). Following the community discussion on Slack with over 100 participants, a small "task force" was formed to investigate in detail the possibility of starting a Diamond OA seismology journal, taking Volcanica as a model. In this contribution, we report the progress that has been made by the task force and the seismological community in the conceptualisation of the journal, and the steps that remain to be taken. Once the initiation of the journal is completed, Seismica will offer a platform for researchers to publish and access peer-reviewed work with no financial barriers, promoting seismological research in an inclusive manner. We invite all interested members of the seismological and earthquake community to participate in the discussions and development of this OA journal, by contacting the authors listed on this abstract.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1760.063

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 head0.808
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Computing and Data Management→French-language works237,207→