Barriers and pathways for advancing open science and open scholarship in academic institutions: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This repository contains the manuscript “Barriers and pathways for advancing open science and open scholarship in academic institutions: a Canadian perspective.” The paper examines why the adoption of open science and open scholarship remains uneven across Canadian universities despite growing funder mandates and policy expectations. It identifies nine interconnected structural barriers spanning research evaluation and incentives, cultural norms, training and capacity, cyberinfrastructure, governance and coordination, and equity considerations, including Indigenous data sovereignty, accessibility, and linguistic inclusion. Building on this diagnostic framework, the manuscript outlines institutional pathways for enabling sustainable change, emphasizing the integration of top-down leadership (policies, funding, governance) with bottom-up community practices (disciplinary engagement, training, and cultural change). A detailed case study of Concordia University illustrates how coordinated multilevel governance can translate open science principles into concrete institutional policy, culminating in the unanimous adoption of a Senate Resolution on Open Science and Open Scholarship in 2025. This work contributes to ongoing discussions on research policy, institutional transformation, and open scholarship in Canada and beyond.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | low |
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 | 0.047 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.066 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".