MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408751047 · doi:10.63485/hfgk2-d4g87

CLA position statement on OA

2008· preprint· en· W4408751047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Suber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementStatement (logic)Position (finance)BusinessPolitical scienceMedicineLawFinanceFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last month Heather Morrison gave us a preview of a new OA position statement from the Canadian Library Association (CLA). Now the statement itself is online: Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries. (Thanks, again, to Heather Morrison.) Here�s the statement in full: Comment . I'm glad to repeat my comment on the preview from last month.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0170.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4110.328

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207