10.2 Innovative Research Services: The Library and Research Services Facilitating Open Science at Queen's University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This session will present a case study on how Research Administration and the Library collaborate at Queen’s University in support of open science. Key recommendations of The University’s Strategic Research Plan (2012–17) include: Foster knowledge translation where the outcomes of our research can benefit society. Explore evolving emphasis on Open Access. Our strong collaborative relationship, including IT Services, creates support for Queen’s researchers’ activities from research development and grant writing to publishing and impact assessment. This presentation will focus on our initiatives to support new, creative solutions to research data management and scientific communication that strategically help to manage the growing wave of research data, to host research outputs, and to maximise their accessibility. Examples of co-operative initiatives include the Queen’s Research Data Committee, Research Data Day, Scholarly Communications and Research Data Working Groups, and the QSpace institutional repository. Several of these are the outcomes of a jointly envisioned eScience Strategic Agenda. Collaboration makes it possible for researchers to find the supports and services they need in one spot and without duplicating efforts – administrators and researchers alike. One example is a current electronic services project that will enable our new CV and annual (faculty member) merit reporting tool to be a mechanism for open access deposit into the University’s institutional repository. This creative solution will facilitate compliance with the soon to be released Open Access Policy from the Canadian Tri-Council granting agencies (i.e. SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC). Queen’s Research Services and the Library are also collaborating on the expansion of data management plan services, with the goal of increasing availability of research data, data sharing, and increasing the impact of research output. A discussion of Canadian national policy development and initiatives, national organization partnerships and how our work at Queen’s connects to these activities will conclude our presentation. Sharon Murphy, Head, Academic Services, Queen’s University Library
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.019 |
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".