El acceso abierto como instrumento para la transformación de la evaluación académica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Iniciativa de Acceso Abierto de Budapest (BOAI) en su 20° aniversario publicó un nuevo conjunto de recomendaciones basadas en sus principios originales, vinculadas a incentivar la publicación en abierto y eliminar los desincentivos generados o creados a su alrededor. En Latinoamérica es necesario repensar conceptualmente los alcances del acceso abierto, redefinirlos a partir de la tradición histórica de la región y vincularlos con los procesos de evaluación académica. La región requiere de la ampliación e intervención del acceso abierto en todo el proceso de investigación, que permita consolidar la vinculación del acceso abierto con la ciencia abierta como un proceso dinámico e integral; así como reformar los sistemas y culturas evaluativas imperantes en la región considerando el acceso abierto.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".