MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415967783 · doi:10.3998/jep.7849

Mobilizing Knowledge in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Exploring Competing Articulations of Openness in Policy and Practice

2025· article· W4415967783 on OpenAlex

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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".

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Publishing · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicsLegitimationExpansiveOutreachSet (abstract data type)Work (physics)Knowledge sharingProcess (computing)Public engagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge mobilisation (KMb) is a policy discourse and framework used by major Canadian research funding bodies to promote and monitor the efficiency of knowledge transfer between the university and society. Since 2009, most humanities and social science researchers (HSS) researchers applying for federal funding must complete a KMb module that describes their intended collaborators and non-academic audiences, planned outreach activities and metrics to gauge their success. The ideals of public engagement set out in KMb policy are worthy ones for scholars to strive towards. The framework can also provide legitimation for a diverse range of research practices, relationships, and outputs. Applicants must think about sharing their work throughout the research process rather than simply at its end. This introduces a more expansive understanding of the relations of knowledge producers and their publics than is found in Canadian open access policies and mandates. Many practices commonly understood as open research, such as data sharing, diamond open access publishing, or sharing via blogs or podcasts, would be considered knowledge mobilisation activities, as would practices of community-engaged research or knowledge co-production. Thus KMb policy governs much of the making public of humanities research in Canada. However, it embodies conflicting ideas about the value of shared knowledge. Its emphasis on knowledge as transferable imposes temporal, material, and cognitive restrictions on scholarship. Critics of KMb dismiss it as performative, a tool of institutional governance, or argue that quantifies research as a return on investment. The critiques and possibilities of knowledge mobilisation policy offer insight into wider contemporary struggles over the meaning of openness for humanities and social science research. This paper explores its impact on Canadian HSS scholars in relation to critical debates about changing relations of knowledge, labour, and value in humanities scholarly communication.

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0150.026
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.189 · 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