Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theses are an extraordinarily significant part of the scholarly ecosystem. For researchers, they are often the cornerstone of their career by establishing and communicating their professional knowledge. Boadicea’s journey and contribution to the overthrow of the Romans is used as a metaphor for the transition of theses to participate in and conquer the new digital environment through the activities libraries. The contemporary scholarly ecosystem provides for a transformation that takes theses from a place on the “dusty shelves” of libraries to works which have high impact and achieve international visibility. This paper reports on activities across Australia and New Zealand to open access to theses, together with a deep dive to reveal the community demand for theses in the fields of humanities and social science. The relationship of theses to the scholarly knowledge system and perceived barriers are assessed using a survey of academics. Key issues for the future in terms of the open access policy environment in the context of researchers’ careers are identified.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".