MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From zero to 83% compliance in one year: an open access case study

2019· article· en· W6921436250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)Focus (optics)Block (permutation group theory)Zero (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a case study of compliance with the RCUK policy on Open Access (OA) at Northumbria University, with a particular focus on collaboration between the University Library and Research &amp; Innovation Services. <br>This covers in detail the years 2013-2015, the first two years where RCUK provided block grants to institutions to facilitate OA. It was written as a potential journal submission in 2017-2018, but is being shared instead as a case study.<br>Thanks to Diane Gavin for her support in developing and reviewing the manuscript.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2430.021

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 head0.550
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207