"The IR is a Nice Thing But...": Attitudes and Perceptions of the Institutional Repository
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What attitudes and perceptions do faculty members, graduate students, and other stakeholders have regarding the institutional repository (IR)? I conducted a study at the University of Western Ontario through a survey of 316 participants from various faculties and in roles ranging from graduate students to tenured faculty members, followed by interviews with 10 faculty members and 3 librarians to discuss aggregate results from the survey. Results suggest a course of action for librarians who work with IRs, based on participants’ perceptions of barriers to use (branding, data ownership, resistance to open access (OA), alternative avenues for self-archiving) and elements of the IR participants enjoy and find motivating for use (continued access for graduates, dissertations and theses, pre-print literature reviews, satisfying OA mandates). Suggested next steps to promote IR uptake cover a number of different areas: mediated deposit; clarify benefits for faculty members; communication between library and users; opt-in features; tenure and promotion; enforcing OA mandates; and collaboration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it