Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presentation as part of a COPIM webinar hosted by the National Acquisitions Group In early 2022 the major research funding body in the UK (UKRI), released a policy statement mandating OA monographs, with an implementation date of January 1st, 2024. This date will see a shift from a hypothetical future for OA books to a concrete policy with a hard deadline. Add to this the forthcoming mandates on OA books from cOAlition S/Plan S in Europe, plus potential implications of the next REF in the UK, and it is clear that there is a pressing need for libraries and academic book publishers to understand how the sector will meet the challenges of implementing these policies. In this session, the speakers outline the current state-of-play and discuss how we can move to meet these imminent OA mandates. With a mix of presentation(s) and Q&A, the audience is invited to discuss what the transition to open access for scholarly books will look like, and to question the challenges and opportunities. Who is at risk of being excluded, on the library and the publishing sides? How do we get from where publishing and libraries are today, to making these policies a workable reality in 2024? And how will all of this be paid for? Speakers will demonstrate how Book Processing Charges (BPCs) worsen inequality by favouring the most wealthy institutions and authors and will then highlight some collective library models that seek to spread the funding of OA books so that no single institution bears a disproportionate cost. Programmes in use today range from the large and well-funded publishers like MIT and their Direct 2 Open, to much smaller publishers like OBP and punctum books. Highlight the COPIM project’s Opening the Future model and the Open Book Collective. With the clock ticking on policies, conversation is urgently needed on the practicalities of making mandates reality. What can libraries do to meet the challenge, and how might supporting programmes like those launched by COPIM ensure that the transition to OA is a sustainable and bibliodiverse one? The transition to OA should not leave smaller and medium-sized presses behind; nor should it rely on paying BPCs, which risks excluding any author without funding. And the transition must also be sustainable for libraries.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.621 | 0.319 |
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".