Open Access and Canadian Libraries: Taking a Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The co-convenors of the Canadian Library Association (CLA) Task Force on Open Access report on the work of the Task Force. CLA has adopted strong policies on open access to CLA's own publications, most of which have been implemented. CLA has contributed to consultations on open access. On May 21, 2008, CLA approved a Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries. The Position Statement reinforces access to information as one of librarianship's key values. Libraries are encouraged to support open access in a variety of ways, from supporting open access policies to educating patrons about open access as a concept, and OA resources, and by providing economic and technical support to open access. Practical ideas for implementing the recommendations are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".