MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6911328626 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10551710

The European landscape of institutional publishing - A synopsis of results from the DIAMAS survey

2024· article· en· W6911328626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPublishingPublicationHorizonElectronic publishingQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DIAMAS is a HORIZON Europe project that aims to understand and support institutional publishing, paying particular attention to initiatives that do not charge fees to read or publish scholarly outputs, i.e., Diamond Open Access (OA) publications. The following synopsis presents a summary of the DIAMAS project’s Landscape Report “Institutional Publishing in the ERA; results from the DIAMAS survey” highlighting its main findings.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.071
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0130.001
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.657
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.114 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207