MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409912679 · doi:10.1098/rsos.240857

Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas

2025· article· en· W4409912679 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersArts and Humanities Research CouncilFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsOpenness to experienceIncentiveTransparency (behavior)Public relationsEthosEquity (law)Political sciencePublic policyScience policyOpen scienceInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)SociologyPublic administrationEconomicsSocial sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National, international and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration and better access to scientific knowledge. Yet, there is mounting concern that OS policies do not effectively capture the ethos of OS, and particularly its goal of making science more collaborative, inclusive and socially engaged. This study explores how OS is conceptualized in emerging OS policies and to what extent notions of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), as well as public participation are reflected in policy guidelines and recommendations. We use a qualitative document research approach to critically analyse 52 OS policy documents published between January 2020 and December 2022 in Europe and the Americas. Our results show that OS policies overwhelmingly focus on making research outputs publicly accessible, neglecting to advance the two aspects of OS that hold the key to achieving an equitable and inclusive scientific culture-namely, EDI and public participation. While these concepts are often mentioned and even embraced in OS policy documents, concrete guidance on how they can be promoted in practice is overwhelmingly lacking. Rather than advancing the openness of scientific findings first and promoting EDI and public participation efforts second, we argue that incentives and guidelines must be provided and implemented concurrently to advance the OS movement's stated goal of making science open to all.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
grokOpen scienceScholarly communicationMetaresearch
Domain: Incentives · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
opusOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.245
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0490.007
Open science0.0190.050
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.336
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.282 · 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