LIBER 2020 - Session #3: Securing and Building Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These are the slides from the LIBER 2020 Session Securing and Building Trust. <strong>Session Description:</strong> LIBER’s 2022 vision is a world where research data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR), with as the predominant form of publishing, Open Access. However, we recognize that we are not there yet. There are many obstacles in our way before we can realize Open Access. One of them is Securing and Building Trust with researchers, publishers and institutions, such as universities, to enable this Open Access. If you are interested in how the LIBER community is planning on overcoming this obstacle, the following session will be relevant for you. The session ‘Securing and Building Trust’ will focus on three different research papers with an overarching theme of how to gain trust for policies related to Open Access in your library’s community and beyond. During this session, Arjan Schalken, will present the results of the pilot ‘You Share, We Take Care’, launched in 2019, implementing article 25 fa of the Dutch copyright law, stimulating sharing research output that is the result of publicly funded research. He will also elaborate on how the UKB managed to gain the trust and support from Dutch universities, legal departments and researchers, for this initiative. Jos Westerbeke, Pieter Gietz and Raoul Teeuwen will, subsequently, enlighten us on the FIM4L initiative: Federated Identity Management (FIM) for libraries, enabling patrons to trust libraries to protect their identities and supporting libraries in safeguarding their patrons, providing the next step towards Open Access. The presentation will introduce FIM and detail the FIM4L guidelines and recommendations, especially the options that are available to libraries for setting up a privacy preserving “Single Sign-On” (SSO). Finally, Claire Gillian Knowles and William Nixon will discuss their experiences of the University of Leeds and the University of Glasgow in building successful and sustainable repositories to capture and share research and the policies and relationships needed to build trust in those repositories. The session will address the challenges faced as well as provide an overview of the repository infrastructure and the trusted role it plays in both Glasgow and Leeds. It will conclude by highlighting how the library can support and maintain trust in the repository and its content.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".