Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open access continued to be a topic of dialogue and debate in 2008.Many of you will recall the thought-provoking closing keynote speech given by Stephen Choi, Co-Editor of Open Medicine, at the Halifax conference.Choi was clearly preaching to the converted, yet we were no less appreciative of his argument for open access as a necessary countermeasure against some of the problems posed by current for-profit STM publishing.Last fall also inaugurated the world's first Open Access Day on 14 October 2008, scarcely a month after announcements about the introduction of the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (H.R. 6845), a proposed bill that could undermine the National Institutes of Health Open Access (NIH OA) mandate by prohibiting any federal funding agency from making its funding contingent on a transfer of rights or licenses to the federal government.Here in Canada, 2008 brought some interesting and encouraging news on the open access front, with the finalizing of the first step in the PubMed Central Canada agreement between partners NRC-CISTI and CIHR.Precisely how these various initiatives and counterforces will shape the open access movement in 2009 and beyond remains to be seen, of course.Meanwhile, JCHLA has also taken a further step in its commitment to open access.Thanks largely to the persistence and patience of a certain JCHLA reader and supporter, the journal will be listed in DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) beginning with this issue.Inclusion in DOAJ, however, has necessitated a revision of the JCHLA author copyright agreement.The new agreement brings our journal in line with comparable open access publications, such as the Journal of the Medical Library Association, and allows JCHLA to receive broader exposure.Essentially the revised agreement allows JCHLA authors to retain copyright while also giving readers the freedom to copy and distribute articles as needed and granting the journal the right to sublicence its content for inclusion in various full-text databases.Although greater exposure for the journal is a positive development in itself, JCHLA cannot go to press without the efforts of its authors.Your contribution may take the form of a book review or a short program description.Or perhaps a research project will naturally arise from a question in your daily work, as it did for Christine Neilson, the author of this issue's peer-reviewed article titled "Which peer-reviewed journals publish the most on diabetes?"As the new year begins, I invite you to share your ideas and research with a wider audience.Season's greetings!
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.017 |
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".