MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945697183 · doi:10.25547/3xdw-4b96

Le libre accès dans les sciences humaines au Canada : une conversation

2024· article· fr· W6945697183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Textual Cultures Lab · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman scienceConversationPortraitEmic and etic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours de la dernière décennie, le libre accès a gagné le soutien des chercheurs et des décideurs politiques, avec un plaidoyer de plus en plus fort en faveur de l’accès gratuit en ligne aux travaux universitaires. Si l’intégration de politiques de libre accès au Canada reflète l’évolution rapide du paysage de l’édition, avec l’essor de la numérisation et le besoin pressant d’élargir l’accès, les obstacles à la généralisation du libre accès sont nombreux et complexes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0610.034
Scholarly communication0.0270.011
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Textual Cultures LabSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207