MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404058795 · doi:10.38126/jspg250107

Policy Considerations for Canada’s Open Access Publishing Strategy

2024· article· en· W4404058795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gavin M. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Science Policy & Governance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingPolitical scienceRegional scienceLibrary scienceBusinessComputer scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open access publishing is primarily driven by the motivation to make publicly funded research findings freely available to potential readers. This can entail increased costs for authors, research institutions, and funding bodies, although the relative costs for stakeholders of open access publishing depends on the publishing sub-type. This point is highly relevant to Canada’s research funding agencies, which are reviewing their Open Access Policy on Publications, with a renewed policy to be released before 2026. Here, I review the open access publishing options, and I recommend Canadian funding agencies incentivize a shift to Diamond open access publishing.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0240.013
Scholarly communication0.0420.018
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0330.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.689
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Science Policy & GovernanceSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207