SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS: Factors influencing Canadian HASS researchers’ open access publishing practices: Implication for the future of scholarly communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a structured questionnaire that was employed to investigate open access (OA) publishing practices of 228 researchers in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences disciplines in Canada.Researchers' OA publishing practices was operationalized using three factors: Experience, Frequency and Extent.The independent variables comprise three factors; Visibility, Prestige and Altruism.These factors represent self-reported benefits of publishing in OA outlets, adapted from existing studies.Validity of items adapted in this study was re-confirmed through exploratory factor analysis (i.e., principal components analysis with varimax rotation), with results exceeding the acceptable limit of .55 (Comrey & Lee, 1992).Similarly, reliability analysis of the scales showed a high Cronbach's exceeding the minimally acceptable range of 0.65-0.70(DeVellis, 1991).This validated questionnaire can be used for investigating OA publishing practices of faculty, researchers, librarians, students, and other user categories in various context.Appendix A: Survey questionnaire 1.
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 | 0.004 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.604 | 0.058 |
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".