De Acceso Abierto a Ciencia Abierta: Lecciones de PKP en América Latina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Open Access movement has profoundly reshaped scholarly communication by promoting universal, free access to academic knowledge. In Latin America, this movement has evolved into a broader Open Science agenda, emphasizing not only access to publications but also the opening of data, methodologies, infrastructures, and governance models. This article examines the trajectory of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) as a case study of how community-driven, open-source infrastructures can sustain the values of transparency, equity, and multilingual inclusion at a global scale. Drawing from nearly three decades of regional experience, we analyze PKP’s impact across UNESCO’s four pillars of Open Science: open knowledge, open infrastructures, dialogue with diverse knowledge systems, and societal engagement. Particular attention is given to the strategic role of Latin America, where decentralized, non-commercial models—now internationally recognized as Diamond Open Access—have long been the norm. We argue that PKP’s development illustrates both the opportunities and tensions of advancing Open Science: ensuring sustainability without commercial capture, balancing global standards with local needs, and safeguarding scientific knowledge as a public good. The lessons from Latin America highlight the importance of governance structures, inter-institutional collaboration, and epistemic diversity for building a more just, inclusive, and sustainable scientific ecosystem.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".