Prioritizing sustainable and equitable open access infrastructure: Closing the SFU Library Open Access Fund
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SFU Library Central Open Access Fund was established in 2010 to provide financial support for SFU authors to publish their work in open access journals. What began as a modest yet meaningful contribution to incentivize OA publication and offset the costs of Article Processing Charges (APCs) has, over the past 15 years, become inadequate to account for the significant changes in OA costs. Average APC costs increased from 1200 Canadian Dollars in 2010 to 3000 Canadian Dollars in 2024; and, in hindsight, we can see clearly that APCs perpetuated inequities and enriched the major publishers: their profits increased as they pivoted their business models to OA (Butler et al., 2023). To address these issues, in Fall 2023, SFU Library convened a group of faculty and librarians to review the sustainability of the current model of the OA Fund. The task group recommended a phased closure of the Fund, and advocated for the library and university to prioritize models that are more sustainable and equitable. In this lightning talk, we will outline the review process, our considerations, and ultimately reflect on how closing the OA Fund will allow us to prioritize sustainable and equitable open access infrastructure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".