Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open Science Partnerships (OSPs) are gaining attention as alternatives to university–industry collaborations with restrictive IPR and knowledge sharing policies. OSPs have different expected outcomes and deploy varying means to reach them. Appreciating these differences is crucial to understanding their scientific and socio-economic impact, and yet these differences have never been systematically investigated. This exploratory study draws on qualitative case studies of five biomedical OSPs involving academic partners and pharmaceutical companies. It identifies key elements—purpose, activities and structure—that can be used to describe how OSPs are designed. We identify two key aspects of purpose— predominant intent and research aims —which we argue affect the activities and structure of an OSP. Based on these two aspects, we propose four ideal types of OSPs that are designed to provide a starting point for researchers who explore the nature and impact of OSPs and for practitioners who are developing OSPs and wish to ensure that they deploy appropriate means to meet the intended outcomes of their partnership.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it