MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392453320 · doi:10.32920/25343236.v1

Weaving Open Dialogue Using Canada’s Open Science Roadmap Framework

2024· preprint· en· W4392453320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Cunningham, Chris Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeavingOpen scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Open science (OS) as a movement has transformative potential in making the process of scientific research transparent and collaborative as well as the outputs freely accessible to all in society. However, these opportunities and challenges are subject to biases and entrenched in power disparities. In addition, the very broad nature of open science also invokes challenges in having meaningful discussions. In 2020, the Government of Canada unveiled a national framework, Roadmap to Open Science, which provided overarching principles and recommendations to allow federal science to be open to all. The University of Toronto (U of T) used this national open science framework to guide an international group of researchers and librarians to discuss open science in practical terms and engage the audience in being part of the dialogue. The five high-level principles of People, Transparency, Inclusiveness, Collaboration, and Sustainability were used as the structure in order to guide discussions into the current state of open science practices on-the-ground in academia. The University of Toronto Library (UTL) partnered with the Centre for Research & Innovation Support (CRIS) to host engaging conversations in a series of five virtual panels, Open Science: Following the Roadmap for Research, held in November 2021. The panelists consisted of librarians, faculty, and researchers from local, national as well as international institutions and organizations. Two core considerations on developing the make-up of the panels were to ensure diversity amongst panelists and have librarians included in every panel. The conversations were thought-provoking and touched-on aspects such as who is included and excluded in the various stages in research, implications of funding and control, infrastructure, power dynamics, and preservation of information. This paper will discuss the open science panel series and common themes which emerged from the conversations.</p> <p> </p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0410.051
Scholarly communication0.0440.021
Open science0.0060.038
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.268
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207