The state of OAI-PMH repositories in Canadian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a study of the current state of Universities Institutional Repositories (UIRs) in Canada. UIRs are vital to sharing information and documents, mainly Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETDs), and theoretically allow anyone, anywhere, to access the documents contained within the repository. Despite calls for consistent and shareable metadata in these repositories, our literature review shows inconsistencies in UIRs, including incorrect use of metadata fields and the omission of crucial information, rendering the systematic analysis of UIR complex. Nonetheless, we collected the data of 57 Canadian UIRs with the aim of analyzing Canadian data and to assess the quality of its UIRs. This was surprisingly difficult due to the lack of information about the UIRs, and we attempt to ease future collection efforts by organizing vital information which are difficult to find, starting from addresses of UIRs. We furthermore present and analyze the main characteristics of the UIRs we managed to collect, using this dataset to create recommendations for future practitioners.
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 | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.093 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".